L'attaque des requins tueurs

Shark in Venice is proof that this awful shark movie fad was going on well before someone got really really really high and came up with the Sharknado (2013) franchise.

It tells the story of a man who discovers his father has been involved in a diving accident in Venice so he goes to investigate. During his time he discovers gangsters, hidden treasure and sharks..........or maybe shark singular it never really confirms that.

The shark(s) do however take a backseat as they aren't the focus of the movie as you'd expect. Instead it's a generic mindless action flick with a wafer thin plot, shoddy writing and acting that demonstrates they just didn't care.

Starring Stephen Baldwin it's another fine demonstration that the Baldwin acting family doesn't deserve the recognition it seems to have recieved and only Alec was born with any actual talent.

Shark in Venice is an embarassing mess and not even one for bad shark film enthusiasts.

The Good:

Cover art is good (Though dishonest)

The Bad:

Stock shark footage

Stock screams

Laughable script

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

POV bullets should not be a thing

Being crooked is fine and all sins forgiven if you do one single good thing

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.

A B-Movie that makes a common mistake. It sidelines the perfectly ridiculous/stupid idea of Sharks in Venice, for a plot involving hidden treasure and the mafia. I didn't come here for no stale performances from humans, I wanted stock footage mixed with obvious CGI. I did get quite a bit of this, but not enough. As someone that appreciates the tacky genre, at least give me what you promise. Especially when the title is that clear. If not, then be more creative, such as "Mysteries of Venice", as this can relate to the treasure and the shark. Baldwin is a perfectly fine actor that takes, even this role, pretty seriously. There are unintentional laughs, bad accents and even epic medieval battles. It's got a lot, but not enough.

There are worse Shark movies out there, but that doesn't stop Shark in Venice from being really bad. The only halfway decent things are some nice scenery and the music, a little over-dramatic at times but it did at least try and give some life and pace. It's a shame that we can't appreciate the scenery more because the camera work is so haphazard, the stock footage is over-used and over-obvious and the editing is very repetitive(like we often see the same shot or same thing happening within minutes of each other) and some of the worst personally seen recently. And the less said about the special effects for the shark the better, it was pretty much over-sized rubber and not much else. The shark has no menace or personality and is so under-utilised that you could swear it was a shark movie but without the shark at times. The dialogue is so stilted and cornball that it was difficult trying to stifle any laughter, even stifling a coughing fit I had two days ago during a recital was less painful. It barely made sense either, while the story takes ridiculous to extremes with science and history completely re-written, scenes that repeat themselves more than once in a short space of time(like the editing), no suspense, thrills, fun or tension and scenes like the ability to talk underwater without lips moving and covered in diving equipment that is insultingly stupid beyond belief. The attacks are completely dull in mood and so stock in a way that you can barely see anything, and the only thing you learn about the characters is what kind of stereotype they are, other than that they're painfully underdeveloped and are not relatable in the slightest. The acting is pretty atrocious with the best acting coming from (no joke) Stephen Baldwin's moobs, okay the main antagonist certainly looked the part but the over-compensated acting was a different story and everyone else especially Baldwin(who ironically has much more screen time than the shark) goes through the motions. To conclude, even when taking it for what it is Shark in Venice is terrible as a shark movie and a movie in general. 2/10 Bethany Cox

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...