Sorry, this movie sucks

Powerful

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I felt embarrassed for the actors that have great reputations but still appear in absolutely horrendous movies like this. The acting, even by the few seasoned pros in the film, was awful. Stilted. Jarring even. The women used as boner-bait and the photographer (the actual producer of this stinker) were so bad that it gives the impression the movie was made just so the producer could take a vacation and take advantage of young actresses. They spent no time writing a story here. They seem to have a fifth grade understanding of what it's like to work in science, how those offices and labs function. That's at least understandable: some new writer having never been exposed to such things. But then they write a fashion photo shoot in the same infantile manner. Did this writer never see a photo shoot in their lives? You think it's two bikini clad women in sub freezing temps, a photog with no lighting, one small crappy reflector (they also refer to a light meter once, pretending it would be kept in the photographer's clothing suitcase inside the winter hat he's already been wearing), and an assistant that is abused by the photog. It seems like this area should be more well written. Photography is not far from videography. Were the crew laughing their bums off during that scene? The cartoonish villainy of the photographer/producer was also just stupid. There was nothing redeeming about this movie at all. Did they need a bad movie as some sort of write-off? Was there a mob debt involved? Get Shorty Season 2 brings us the making of Unnatural? I want to know the story behind this movie. Someone had to have been extorted.ETA: I just did a little more research on the writer "Arch Stanton". It's not a real person. It was a purportedly deceased character at the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. And the funny thing about that character name is that the character name was also a fake name. Another character, Blondie, made the name up to put on a grave marker. Does this mean the producer/writer/lead actor knew this was a really poor script so he put a fake name on it?

Okay, so this is my first review, sadly there's nothing much to say about this B-listed horror flick.You'll most likely recognize some faces in this one, especially James Remar. Actually that's all I have to say about the cast, you might know them from TV series and go: "Hey , I know that guy!". The acting is not there at all, the writing is horrible and so is Hank Braxtan.The location is amazing but sadly not exploited enough.I would have liked to see more wide shots of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness.I did 'enjoy' however that they didn't go for CGI when making the bear, or wolf-seal-bear, whatever that thing was... well, they tried. The script annoyed me a bit, as the two characters i liked either got mauled pretty quickly or weren't the person I imagined them to be.Overall a mix between goofy script(God, I hope it was on purpose), sub-par acting and poor directing choices. Don't watch this unless you really have nothing else better to do, go check out Frozen, Backcountry, The thing, The Grey etc. not this BS.

Predictable cannon fodderYep, we have another Made in China run of the mill cliché inducing stereotypical predictable Hollywood piece of cloned bear crap. But why, Sam, oh why do you say these things?!Example 1: beautiful people are framed by a company man telling them "It's climate changes fault!" type of back story. This is for the viewer's benefit and we must take it as given because if we questioned the company man and his marketing campaign we would realise that taking such a complex issue and condensing it into 20 seconds of monologue isn't strong enough, interesting enough or believable enough to create a goddam story we would want to pay attention to or even PAY TO WATCH! Example 2: panicking lab coat science geek shouting over the tannoy for Dr. Keller to stay out of NP2 but ooohhh no that crazy old Doc Keller and his goofy sidekick, they're just opening up that NP2 door and KUBOOOOF! Example 3: this surprised me. Annoying and overtly racist city guy sits at the dinner table up there in the cold north with his beautiful friends and the weather-beaten animal killing local hosts with whom he is engaging in witty repartee, and he does the usual thing: calls the Injun fella at the table an Injun fella and describes his people as fish on a stick types...you know where this is going. So obviously City Guy loses any remaining shred of sympathy he probably never had. The native looks on, disgusted. That should be that. But no: the native guy then slips effortlessly into exactly the stereotypical role City Guy just cast him in by telling some B.S. story about BIG MASSIVE BEARS that his tribe FEAR. And the funny thing is, we the viewers know IT'S (sort of) TRUE! HAHAHA!!And you get all of that in the first fifteen minutes. You want more, huh? THEN GO WATCH IT! WASTE YOUR OWN LIVES!

Hank Braxtan brings us our third killer bear film of 2015.'Into The Grizzly Maze,' didn't live up to expectations, with it's major cast, and horrible editing, more fit for television than big screen. 'Backcountry,' on the other hand, exceeded expectations, as more of a survival flick, with one gruesome kill scene. So, how does 'Unnatural' hold up? Creature features really depend on the type of director/writer involved. Are they less is more kind of guys, or do they believe in going all out? Believe it or not, bears are rather frightening and dangerous without being genetically modified (Backcountry.) Personally, I would have preferred your normal, ornery, territorial polar bear, but Hank Braxtan wasn't having any of that. He decided to overcompensate for something... So, what could have been a solid experience, ended up being 'Into The Grizzly Maze' set in Alaska. 'Unnatural' just throws in an unnecessary back story about genetics, that no one will care about. We just want to see the bear rip through those typical, annoying characters - played by your typical bad actors/actresses. Oh yes, the cast - Somehow, James Remar continues to get work - and he's as wooden as ever here. Seriously, though, this guy supplies more wood than your local paper mill. Graham Greene pops up for about 3 minutes of screen time (It's nice to see he's still alive.) Sherilyn Fenn may or may not be involved here. I couldn't really tell - She used to be attractive.Random Ramblings of a Madman: If you're going to spend 95% of the film avoiding actual shots of your enormous, genetically modified bear, why not just, you know, use a regular sized Polar bear? I hear those things pack a mean bite. 'Unnatural,' however, does not.