Sharktopus

I have seen better acting in a high school play rehearsal. Cheesy actors (no-names with nothing to their credit, for the most part), cheesy "special effects," (if you can even call them that), cheesy story (some sort of history of the creature that is only vaguely explained), horrible attempts at humor (especially when people get attacked by the creature), cheesy creature (half octopus and half shark -- really?), and cheesy creature "action." You can actually tell without any stretch of the imagination that it's similar to claymation in front of a green screen -- and not very good animation, either. I mean, really? Was this a 6th grade video project? Eric Roberts must be just one step above destitute to have signed to to this horrible production. We should all send him $5 so he doesn't have to do another one like that. Horrible. Just horrible.

Nathan Sands (Eric Roberts) and his daughter Nicole (Sara Malakul Lane) are scientists who created a shark/octopus hybrid. It manages to escape their control. They follow it to Mexico where they hire local guide Andy Flynn (Kerem Bürsin).

This is dumb, but that's to be expected. The CGI is bad, but it could be worst. The sharktopus design has problems, but I get the concept. The acting is bad, but they do have Eric Roberts. This is bad camp, but it is not worst of the worst. It does have girls in bikinis, but I wouldn't call it sexploitation. Its greatest sin is that it's boring. I wouldn't recommend it.

A half-shark, half-octopus creature created for the military, creates a whole lot of terror in Mexico while a scientist (Eric Roberts) who helped created it tries to capture/kill it.

I had just about as high of expectations and anticipation as one could possibly muster for this film. I received word roughly two months in advance that I would be receiving the Blu-ray and I checked my mailbox day in and day out, eagerly awaiting its arrival. I knew it was going to be bad, but I wanted to savor its badness. And the more I waited, the more I wanted it... and what I got was far worse than anything I could have ever imagined.

There are some things I could say nice about he film. Eric Roberts is decent, there is an "epic beard man" whose facial hair puts mien to shame. The film is not scary, but it made three cats on my girlfriend's couch jump, so that has to count for something... but that is about all.

There are bad special effects, of course -- and it almost seems like they are embracing it. The smart move is to show a creature as little as possible in a horror film, especially when the makeup or effects are not great. Here the effects are among the worst I have ever seen on SyFy, and they still felt the need to show the sharktopus early and often.

There is also terrible acting, with actors who can only deliver lines in a choppy monotone. I think some of them do not speak English and are reading their lines phonetically. But it is hard to tell, and maybe this was just the best cast they could get. One character, Bones the camera man, is covered in fake tattoos. They could not find one bad actor with real tattoos?

Should I classify this as one of those films that is "so bad it's good"? I do not think so. Maybe if you are really drunk, kicking back some bottles of Pabst Blue Ribbon with some buddies, making fun of it... it might be tolerable. But under no condition could this ever be seen as "good".

Thanks are given in the credits to Gabriel Cowan, the director of "Breathing Room" and "Growth"... why? Aside from Roger Corman and Eric Roberts, Cowan is the only remotely famous or successful person associated with this project -- but what did he do to get thanked?

If there is anything redeeming about this film at all, it is that the disc comes with an audio commentary from producer Roger Corman. Corman is, obviously, a legend in the horror and science fiction genres. So to hear him talk over the movie is a nice treat. But, if you think he can make a bad film good or justify its creation, you would be wrong. Not a film to see under any circumstances... I would rather see "Raptor Island" again.

I used to think Cabin Boy was the worst movie ever made, but I was wrong. There are no words to describe the terrible acting, the lame effects, the lack of flow, etc.

When the tongue-in-cheek jokes are predictable, you know it sucks. I attempted to watch it twice, but did not make it past two commercial breaks.

I am sure even Charlie Sheen makes fun of Eric Roberts for this movie. I just hope the other "actors" careers recover from this.

If you are looking to waste two hours of your life, there are better ways than watching this garbage.

Well, I knew it was going to be bad just because of the name. But I've been pleasantly surprised before and, as I've said in previous reviews, I also have a tendency to enjoy lame sci-fi/horror movies, so I gave it a shot. And boy do I wish I hadn't.

This film walks the very fine line between laughably bad and just plain bad. There were a couple of enjoyable moments. Not nearly enough to make up for the rest of the movie, unfortunately. I suppose it could be really fun if you watch it with a few friends, the sound muted, and make up your own dialog.

The writers clearly put some effort into it. Just... not enough. The dialog and characters weren't too bad. If only casting had chosen people who can actually act.

Clearly, the standards for acting have gone way down in recent years. Expecting Oscar-worthy performances on a straight to TV movie is unreasonable, but I do expect at least *some* talent. I don't think I heard one single convincing scream during the entire movie. There was a lot of physical acting (mostly running) required, so the screams should have been a breeze. Apparently not for this cast. I'm thinking the majority of them were chosen more on the basis of looking good in bathing suits than anything else. At least, the male lead was. Washboard abs aside, I wasn't the least bit impressed. The female lead was just as unconvincing.

While watching this, my mom made a comment about whether or not Eric Roberts uses his sister's name to get parts. I find that highly unlikely, particularly in this case. If he was, he'd certainly have used it to get a much better gig than this one. Maybe that's why he put forth so very little effort for the role. He does, however, pull off the required creepy, cold-hearted and extremely unlikeable aspects of the character. Sadly, his was the best performance.

The creature... Well, the name itself is a big enough warning. I am willing to overlook the fact that it's so unrealistic looking because of the obvious absurdity of combining a great white shark and an octopus into one animal and the clearly low budget. I suppose it could have looked cool if they'd had the money for better special effects. I'm also willing to overlook the fact that the tentacles look more like those of a squid than an octopus to me. (A very disturbing bit of proof that I need to lay off the nature documentaries, let me tell, ya'.) However, I do take some issue with the ends of the tentacles being sharp enough to pierce flesh like a spear. Seriously? The twenty-foot reach, suckers and enough strength to crush people into jelly wasn't enough? This little extra was probably put in just to add more blood and gore.

By the way, someone needs to sit the director down and explain to him that this is not a 3-d film and having fake blood splatter the camera lens is not cool. It doesn't make it look or feel more realistic and certainly does not add to the experience. It added to my eye-rolling, but that's about it. He also needs to tell his actors when they're doing a crap job. But he did get some really nice scenery and aerial shots in, so he didn't do a *completely* terrible job.

Basically, you may get a few laughs. That's about the only redeeming aspect of the movie. Everything else is just eye-candy and drivel. In my opinion, not even worth one watch. But I have seen a lot worse. If you want to watch it, have very low expectations and you won't be disappointed.