L'attaque des requins tueurs

I gave it five out of ten because Shark in Venice was even worse than i thought it could possibly be and my expectations were low. The acting is non existent and not in that good way where the actors seem like they are the characters and not acting. The plot as it is, meanders along tried and tested paths leaving you wondering what exactly the number of missing persons listed in Venice each year is for them to fail to notice the disappearance of so many people. It is reminiscent of a great episode of Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy tries to sell a film script to Rodney, which is supposed to be a whodunit, involving a killer Rhino living in secret, smack bang in the middle the city of London, hiding in an abandoned garage in the back streets and coming out every night to trample, gore and even possibly eat the unsuspecting residents of Old London Town.

Now lets face it, if you're serious enough about watching this movie to be even reading this comment then you're probably going to do it anyway because you're bored and like me you have a taste for B movies which involve large creatures eating people. i promise you if this film had been awful i would have given it 10 out of 10 for doing exactly what it said on the label, but this is the kind of bad which makes Anaconda look like an Oscar winner. Treat with care and enjoy whatever you can. But you were warned

SHARK IN VENICE sounds like your bog standard SyFy/Asylum monster flick, but it's not. It's actually a low budget, low rent gangster thriller in which the sharks are an added afterthought. Stephen Baldwin stars in a conspiracy plot line involving the search for a hidden treasure by the Italian Mafia. Of course, he's the only one who has a chance of stopping them in their tracks.

The whole of SHARK IN VENICE has a lame and slapdash feel. There's some murky underwater footage and a few scenes of extras being torn apart by sharks in order to justify the title, but for the most part this is a Z-grade thriller without any thrills. The acting is bad, and not just from Baldwin who sleepwalks through the leading role. Danny Lerner produced some great B-movies over the years like Van Damme's IN HELL and Adkins's NINJA but he should have stuck with production instead of trying to direct.

For as much as my wife and I enjoyed this film (and yes, we did enjoy it), it was almost entirely due to the shark. I mean, I normally don't even watch this sort of thing, but the title alone pulled me in. "Sharks in Venice" I sez to myself, that's GOT to be good. And sure, I was entertained. But...why wasn't there more shark?

I was expecting like Jaws in Venice or something. But this was more like Indiana Jones in Venice (with Shark), and that's just not good enough. Hell, you could have cut the shark out completely and little would have been lost storywise. I mean, why the Mafia stuff? Jaws didn't need Mafia guys. Chief Brody didn't need to rescue his kidnapped wife. It's such a simple formula: Shark in water. Shark killing people in water. Need to get shark out of water. Let's go get that shark. Shark dead. That seems pretty straight forward to me and they even had a nice backdrop of Venice to work with. How can you screw up a formula like that? I'll tell you how, rip-off the third Indiana Jones movie and muck it up with mobsters, that's how. It's like they weren't even trying.

And the weirdest part is that there wasn't even a good reason the shark was in the movie. And you know what? I think the shark could tell. You could feel it in his lackluster performance. He knew he wasn't really the star of this movie, despite the title. He realized they had just taken some other movie idea and thrown shark in it to make it interesting. But that's the thing, the shark was the best part of the movie. So why not make it a shark movie? And again, I'm sure the shark was asking himself that in the few scenes he had, which would explain why he just didn't seem to be giving it his all. Was he better than Baldwin or Johannson? Well, duh! But that's not saying much, is it? Even a DEAD shark would have out-performed the girlfriend.

So was it a good movie? Well, I laughed a lot, so that's something. And the "plot" was just threadbare enough for you to really notice all the glaring holes in it, so that's always fun. But really, the one thing really lacking in Shark in Venice was the shark. And that's a shame. Perhaps some day a savvy filmmaker will put good use to having sharks in the canals of Venice. But until then, you're stuck with this one instead. I wonder if the Snakes on a Plane guys are busy...

I had pretty low expectations of this film just because of the ridiculous title,but this was even worse than expected.It was one of the the worst films I've seen all year,or any year.Quite frankly,it is **** of the highest order.I was hoping for enjoyable,tongue in cheek nonsense like Snakes On A Plane,but this was outrageously bad.I don't know which was the more embarrassing,the rubber looking shark or Stephen Baldwin's man boobs.

Seriously,there is nothing whatsoever to recommend this film apart from the fairly catchy title.I just dread the day when we see films like The Great Thames Piranha Invasion, or Silverback Gorillas Take Manhattan....

It may be called Shark In Venice,but it was actually made in Bulgaria.Judging this film,I will be careful to avoid any 'Bullywood' films in the future.

There are so many factual errors, glaring goofs, moments of technical ineptitude and scenes of sheer idiocy in Shark in Venice that I'm not entirely convinced that this film is a genuinely bad piece of film-making, but rather a deliberate attempt at crapdom carefully crafted to appeal to cult movie fans. It matters not though, 'cos either way it sucks.

Stephen Baldwin, he of The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas and Celebrity Big Brother fame, stars as David Franks, a lecturer in marine biology who unwittingly becomes involved in a Mafia scheme to locate the lost treasure of the Medicis, which supposedly lies hidden somewhere in the waterways of Venice. Unfortunately for Franks, the city's famous canals are now teeming with ravenous Great White sharks, having been filled with the toothy 'watch dogs' by crazy Mafia boss Clemenza (Giacomo Gonnella), who clearly wasn't having one of his better days when he came up with that idea.

Those going into this film will probably have a pretty good notion of what to expect given the ultra-naff title and the fact that it's only star is one of the lesser Baldwins (who displays less emotion than the film's sharks), but even then they may find themselves surprised by some of the absolute tosh thrown onto the screen by writer/director Danny Lerner. I'm not even going to try and catalogue all of the daft bits—it would take me far too long to compile a comprehensive list—suffice to say that it's bloody hard to talk underwater with a regulator stuffed in your gob, and a severed leg won't ever grow back, even if you are a Baldwin!