joshuaackerman-22206

What can I say about Sand Sharks? Well, it's not terrible; for one thing, it is entertaining for seconds, so you can give that to Cameron Larson.

Sure, sand sharks may sound ridiculous, but they are not fiction; they just don't swim in sand, but they can last on sand beds for a dozen minutes to an hour, so there's that. It is what it is.

Sand sharks, the horror flick? Well, I liked it overall, and as said, it is entertaining, and Brooke Hogan not only looked good; her acting was excellent and very convincing, top professional.

Corin Nemec, aka Jimmy Green, played the sleazeball con perfectly, and you just knew it wasn't going to end well; it never does for the character with something in their past, i.e., a botched party with a dozen deaths. At least he kind of went out making up for it.

Eric Scott Woods, aka Sheriff John Stone, had to have been one of the better performances on hand, and it was very easy to buy him as an officer of the law, especially when he initially suspected foul play and not a shark attack, noting the evidence of a blood trail that supported his theory over his colleague's. Kind of worked that he somewhat would be the hero of the piece, though there technically wasn't one.

The ending didn't disappoint either.

What can I say about shark of the corn, it just isn't good, and is massively underwhelming for it's concept.

We get a drunk couple, one running around with her upper half on show. A shark that not only looks unauthentic but can also somehow not only survive out of water, but swim around in a corn field too.

We get sloppy script writing, poor dialogue, weaker than poor acting to go with that dialogue, and some underwhelming camera angles to go with the poor acting, that went with the poor dialogue. Who had thought it.

I just do not get it, I mean I wanted too, I did, but the whole thing is not playable so I don't. I have to give it one, mainly because the good people do give us a zero to select. I understand that, a zero would be mean, so fair play to those at IMDB for not having it an option.

Just not good to watch.

Just love me self a good ol' zombie film and day of the dead was no different. George just had that magical way to link his stories and that is what we had with night of the living dead, dawn of the dead, and day of the dead.

Naturally of course everyone saw Rhodes as the villain but the funny thing is, he wasn't, he was the good guy and it was in fact Logan and the other scientists who were in fact the baddies of the piece. Logan was no much if a traitor, he cut up the very people down there protecting them, for what? For worthless experiments, and to fed Bub. The world was gone. His experiments were going no where. Rhodes was absolutely right in his mind set, blow them away, get the f out of there. Rhodes was a man of true strength and integrity, he was honest and you could feel nothing but respect for him because of that. Logan was a butcher. Steele was as tough as nails. Miguel? Well he lost his mind didn't he, and Sarah didn't help with that. I liked Sarah but it just appeared she had her loyalties in the wrong place, she could see Logan was gone, that Miguel was slipping, but she stood by them and tried to keep them moving. She tried to be an opposition to Rhodes when she should have been an ally. Look what happened.

Overall, day if the dead is breathtaking, exquisitely shot. I could watch it time and time again and never get tied of it, it's that good. An inspiration for any film goer, film maker. Classic!