L'attaque des requins tueurs

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...

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!

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

One of the whispering Baldwins travels to Venice to battle with a shark and a man with a beard.

Yet another cheap sharksploitation entry with the new angle of shark attacks in an urban environment. Hence, Venice. Although to be perfectly honest they hardly make the most of this potentially interesting, and agreeably moronic, set-up as the shark hardly attacks anyone other than various divers. And that sort of thing could happen in any shark movie let's be frank. Anyway the odd occasions that the shark does decide to attack tourists and drunken people on the surface prove to be the film's highlights, and these are few and far between.

Shark in Venice is effectively an action-thriller that pits good guy Baldwin against the machine-gun toting Mafioso bad guys. There's lots of shoot-outs and running about. The damn shark almost becomes incidental. Not exactly what we want. A much more accurate title for this film would have been Baldwin In Venice.

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