Based on Jack Warner's novel Shikar, the film details the killing spree of an escaped Bengal tiger after it gets loose in a small town along the Appalachian Trail.

Trying to stop it are Sheriff Barnes (Busey) and big game hunter Colonel Graham (Clark), while a young boy named Roy (Wood) who has a strange connection to the tiger, tries to save it.

Critics panned the film citing substandard acting, heavy use of stereotypical characters, a hole-filled plot, unused subplots, and the use of a live tiger resulting in almost all attacks being implied rather than seen.

Two people disappear along the Appalachian Trail: a young man jogging with his girlfriend and a hermit who rarely leaves his home.

That night, young Roy Satterly is reading by flashlight when a Bengal tiger briefly appears in front of his bedroom window.

A cast taken at the next victim's scene points to a tiger as the hermit's killer, so Sheriff Barnes holds a press conference to warn the public.

Six National Guardsmen arrive, led by Sergeant Winshiser, as does Colonel James Livingston-Graham, an experienced big game hunter and tracker from England.

Graham tells the sheriff the soldiers will fail due to their arrogance and that he will start his hunt for the tiger when they finish.

Later, at another press conference, a reporter reveals Graham was exiled from India, his former home, after failing to kill a tiger that slaughtered over 200 people.

In October 2006, RHI Entertainment made a deal with the Sci Fi Channel to produce a series of ten made-for-television natural horror films to air on the network the following year.

[2][3] Based on Jack Warner's 2003 debut novel Shikar, Maneater was filmed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Felix Gonzalez Jr. of DVDReview.com referred to the film as "another Z-grade extravaganza of gore and mayhem" and felt that it was typical of most Sci Fi original movies in that it contained "horrendous writing and nonsensical characters."

"[6] Matt Paprocki from Blogcritics felt the original novel was superior to its film adaptation, and felt the movie was "an appallingly bad creature feature that barely qualifies as such" with multiple plot holes, unexplored subplots, and stereotypical characters plagued by bad acting.

[4] Staci Layne Wilson of Horror.com also felt the film was full of stereotypes, including a "stupid circus trainer; bible-thumping naysayer; the great white hunter; small-minded mayor; pinheaded press; wise Indian sage; [and] military sorts" but felt they were depicted in such an extreme manner that they were simply boring.

"[9] Monsters and Critics.com's Jeff Swindoll felt the film was a poor attempt at replicating Jaws with the tiger taking on the role of a "land shark."

[4][6][11] However, David Johnson of DVD Verdict, heavily criticized the film for "its significant dearth of righteous tiger-attack action".