En eaux très troubles

Don't believe these fake reviews by probably paid, semi-professional writers who say the movie is good. This movie was one big bore with no thought at all put into it. It's just a quick cash grab rebounding off the first one. You'll have more entertainment watching paint dry. I myself have more enjoyment spoon feeding my disabled, hunchbacked cousin pudding. The shark in Sharknado looks more realistic than this creation made by some CGI intern at the local community college. No cares about quality content anymore and it's sad for the avid film goer...This is an unbiased review from a real person who loves movies.

Clearly Jason Statham just did this movie for the money. The story is ridiculously bad, I mean seriously bad! Statham is like a constipated statue the whole time. The CGI is cheap nasty and completely unrealistic. The only saving grace that is fantastic & I mean FANTASTIC is when the credits rolled. This movie is everything that is wrong with Hollywood, regurgitating stories and using bad actors, bad producers & bad CGI. Would anyone in Hollywood ever stop this idiocy forever. Don't go see the Meg it's awful. Not one bit entertaining, it was made as a money magnet but I for one don't see the pull of it. Avoid it, it's a waste of time and money.

Personally, I was surprised that Jason Statham decided to make a sequel to the Meg. Most likely because I did not think the Meg was his type of movie. Not exactly Crank on water or anything. The film is an obvious cash cow but worth the money. No need to put any thought into how stupid this movie its cause it's met to be the opposite of smart. Its entertaining as hell and does not slow down long enough for me to point out the plot holes and the science mistakes. A perfect Tie-in to Shark Week. I went into this baby knowing that I was going to like it and I came out loving every minute of it. It's not met to be Shakespeare but it's definitely a fun experience.

My Rating reflects expectations. If this was touted as a edge of your seat thriller with cutting edge CGI and unexpected twists and turns, it'd be a 2. But this was always going to end up the campy, overacted, completely implausible, CGI riddled cheese-fest that it is. And it absolutely delivered on that expectation.

It has Plot holes so big you could swim a megladon through, hilarious foreshadowing via dialogue (if they say something won't happen, its going to happen,) and a decent smattering of quips, giggle/smirk inducing lines, and the requisite action scenes.

It ticked all the boxes for expectations - and exceeded it in areas like "completely unrealistic technology," "inaccurate animal behaviour" and "Implausible physics/hydrodynamics." But that just added to the fun.

For the naysayers - expecting more quality/realism/etc from this movie is like expecting a Fast and the Furious movie to be extolling the virtues of bicycles.

Its a fun, lighthearted, and "laugh at the ridiculousness" sort of flick and that's worth a passing grade.

Meg 2: The Trench is like all those late entries to the Jurassic Park franchise: lifeless, soulless, mindless, dumb, generic. There is no excitement or suspense, no characters one can relate too (at least I couldn't), and compared to fine "shark movies" like Jaws, Deep Blue Sea, Open Water or The Shallows, this one is not B-league but C-league, despite some production value. Also, some well done CGI is no news anymore for quite some time and not very entertaining if the rest of the movies is just crap. I really would prefer to put some of those good old Godzilla themed movies of the 50s and 60s back on my screen (and have some fun) instead of watching this, well, void of boredom ever again. I really like some of the movies starring Jason Statham, but as I don't watch (and like) Fast & Furios movies (the last one I watched was the third entry) the last really good one I can remember was that little movie Homefront, a movie made 10 years ago - simply put, I would prefer to get more class and less mass.