Dickshark

Low budget filmmaker Bill Zebub made this really bizarre, dirty and just flat out crazy film about a guy who uses a genital growth lotion and turns his penis to a shark. It would be a crazy fun film it id didnt have a run time of 2hr. 29 min. Seriously its 2 and a half hours. Anyway its cool to see Erin Brown again. Haven't seen her in a while.

Plot

A romantic couple get more than they expected after the husband's experiments with penis-enlargement cream go awry. Wait, this is not a porn story. Rather, it is an absurd science-fiction movie that features a curious new species, the Dickshark. In some ways this story asks the same questions that Mary Shelly did when she wrote "Frankenstein.

Cast

Not being my general type of thing I was unfamiliar with anyone except Erin Brown who is better known as her erotic movie alter ego Misty Mundae.

Verdict

Dickshark was a recommendation otherwise I'd not have likely watched it even for the novelty factor. When I looked on IMDB I facepalmed at the cover art and scratched my head at the runtime, how could this be three hours in length?

Within moments I saw what type of film this was and I use the term film very loosely. Each scene features the same formula, a guy and a girl and for often unexplained reasons she's naked, topless or in her underwear. The banter between them is juvenile, the acting non-existent and then we'll have some involvement with the "Dick Shark" and it makes Scyfy movies look like they're on 200 million budgets.

To be clear there really is no plot here, it's just three hours.....yep it really is three hours....of T&A. Girl jiggles boobs, man makes bad jokes.

The novelty element could have made for a short film but not a feature and certainly not something of this length.

Outside of teen boys I don't see who'd like this and I honestly question if they would either.

Rants

I don't get it, what were they thinking when they made this? Was it a lost bet? Was it a dare? I struggle to believe anyone actually thought this was a good idea. It's like troma mixed with softcore porn but without much sex, I'm really lost for words and blown away that this exists and this is coming from a guy who watches a LOT of weird indie flicks.

Breakdown

Constant close up female genital shots were unnecessary No plot Awful acting Cast have no place in front of the camera Everyone involved should be embarassed.

I have mixed impressions about this title.

Production is cheap. Lighting and cinematography are dreadful. The pace is glacial, the editing frustrating, and why oh why so much slo-mo?

There's a lot of female nudity, and all the actors are obviously there for the love of it because no-one is taking themselves, the nudity or the film too seriously. They can't even suppress their mirth at times. I can forgive the cheap props, gratuitous boob shots and micro-budget film-making because the ideas expressed are quite high-brow.

Others are complaining about the dialogue. It initially comes across as silly stuff, what seems to be many ad libs, off on tangents and probably a lot was shot in one take. There are gaps in the dialogue, the actors break eyeline, look at the camera or over to where I suspect the script is available to be read off camera. The script is at times frustrating and could have been shot and edited much, much better.

But the thing that surprised me within the eccentric dialogue are the observations and commentary on modern society, such as myths and clichés accepted as fact, the poor discipline in modern education and then, importantly, the call-back to a classic by Mary Shelley.

**Ding!** Dick is a modern Victor Frankenstein, destroyed by his own power and one of his own creations. The dialogue up to that moment has reflected Shelley's themes on the uneducated and the use of knowledge for good or evil. Does Dick even consider science for good or bad, or is the pursuit of science its own reward, as well as an excuse for fondling breasts?

High brow conversation and low brow visuals.

Is this porn? No, female nudity is not porn, besides which there are no male actor's bits seen on the screen. "Dickshark" is a direct descendant of the monster-nudie and nudie-cuties of the 60's. Remember Francis Ford Coppola's first couple of movies - "The Bellboy and the Playgirls" and "Tonight for Sure"? Who could foresee "The Godfather" series or "Apocalypse Now" from those nudie-cutie origins?

I make note of a few minutes dedicated to music credits at the end. I respect Bill Zebub's effort here of one artist promoting other collaborating artists. But Bill, if you read this, please get a fresh pair of eyes to check your spelling before delivering the final product. Mistakes abound!

In summary, if you can endure the glacial pace and many shortcomings in the craft of film-making evident in "Dickshark" there is a high concept running underneath all the boob shots and ridiculous props. .....and it pays to know Mary Shelley's writing.

This entire movie is in slow motion, and it's TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG.

I wanted to die after 5 minutes.

Apparently there are different versions of this film as there seem to be versions which differ in length. Several sites/reviewers have pointed out that they watched a version which is about 2 hours 30 minutes. However the version having watched was slight over 1 hour 34 minutes.

As expected this film isn't great but expected something more creative and more over the top given its title. Its clear Bill Zebub isn't exactly trying as these films don't seem too take long to make. "Dickshark" is essentially an low budget adult film of sorts disguised as an artistic indie.

The acting is stale, the comedy isn't funny and the sharks are entirely too fake looking. Based on the plot synopsis before watching, we knew it isn't to be taken serious. Also does not much make sense, as are we to believe the little "shark" in the opening scene is the same one that appears throughout the film and in the end?

Similar to Holocaust Cannibal, this features most of the women appearing nude with silly nonsense dialogue, background music and slow motion fights.