Leofwine_draca Out of all of the diabolical Sci-Fi channel TV movies I've had the misfortune to sit through, MANEATER emerges as the best so far. It's not a brilliant film by any means, but it is fitfully entertaining and well paced, made with a level of skill and intelligence usually missing from such productions. Cast your mind back to the abominable BLOOD MONKEY, for instance. MANEATER works because it's straightforward: a tiger is menacing a small community and the sheriff has to do something about it. Along the way, soldiers are killed, victims are stalked, and a big game hunter shows up to tackle the menace, and it's all fairly engaging. There's no rubbishy CGI here, just a real tiger going about and eating people. Simplicity works, big time.Anyway, the script throws up no real surprises, but there are some meaty gore effects involving severed body parts and a few mildly suspenseful stalking sequences. A whole sub-plot involving a wayward kid with some kind of telepathic link to the beast is a bore, though, and should have been excised in favour of more big cat thrills. Still, the low budget is handled adroitly, and director Gary Yates deserves kudos for at least making his film look good. Cast-wise, we get the usual level of performances, excepting two leads: Ian D. Clark, having a ball as an OTT game hunter, and Gary Busey as the sheriff hero. Busey is exceptional, in this, a modern day Klaus Kinski, a guy the camera can't shy away from. Stuck in an ill-fitting suit for the entire film and gnashing away at his weird lines, he's worth a star in his own right and adds plenty to the entertainment value. Go, Gary!

merklekranz Sheriff Gary Busey, in a restrained performance, gets right down to business, trying to protect his small Appalachian town from a menacing escaped Bengal tiger. As locals, National Guardsmen, and deputies, become cat food, the situation rapidly deteriorates, until a self appointed British tiger hunter arrives on the scene. Ian D. Clark is quite good in this role, and along with Busey, gives the movie some above the norm acting. The little boy and his religious nut-bag Mother are nothing but damn annoyances, as are all of the news media. "Maneater may not be a work of art, but for it's intended audience, it is totally acceptable. ............... MERK

Mike ...as you may think. Essentially a re-make of JAWS, only the shark is now a tiger and the sea is now the Appalachian Mountains. How much like "Jaws?" Read on: the local sheriff gets involved when a Bengal tiger gets loose and begins killing the townsfolk, so he raises the alarm, much to the dismay of the town's smarmy mayor, who doesn't want the town's big money-making festival canceled. The local yokels get involved when a reward is announced for the killing of the tiger, and an outside "expert" tiger hunter shows up to track the beast as well. So many scenes are reminiscent of "Jaws" it's a wonder Spielberg hasn't sued. For example, a news photographer sets up a shark-proof cage...er...make that a TIGER-proof cage...in a field in order to capture some photos of the animal, and the results are pretty much the same as what befell the shark cage in "Jaws"...that is, it didn't offer any protection! The only significant difference between the two films is that this movie features a young boy who seems to have a strange sixth-sense about the animal, which features strongly in the plot.In spite of the obvious similarities, I actually enjoyed "Maneater" quite a bit. Gary Busey is quite likable as the local sheriff, and Ian D. Clark is just terrific as the British tiger-hunter. Ty Wood is very effective as the young boy with the affinity for the tiger as well.All-in-all, an entertaining way to spend 90 minutes of your time, though if you've seen Jaws, nothing here will surprise you.

bobwildhorror With all the beatings I've dished out to the Sci Fi Channel for its horrible movies, I felt the need to finally post something a little upbeat.Granted, MANEATER is no classic. But it's not a stinker in the typical Sci Fi Channel sense, either. There's a reasonable script. A few eccentric performances. And a director, Gary Yates, who realizes that CGI is not the best way to convey tension. In fact, he uses a real tiger to play...are you ready for it?...a real tiger. Sheer genius, especially when he has the good sense to hide it for the majority of the picture.Of course, there's also Gary Busey, looking like he wandered off an accident scene, his hair askew, his suite ill-fitting (the same suit he wears for the entire film). He is truly a wonder to behold. It seems like he's The film, however, belongs to Ian D. Clark, who plays a big game hunter on the trail of the titular beast. He creeps through the underbrush spouting gibberish that wouldn't sound out of place in a martial arts movie, a Buddhist monk with a shotgun bloodlust.Goofy fun.