L'attaque des requins tueurs

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.

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

Perhaps it was the regurgitation of the same shots over and over again in the short action sequences, perhaps it was the poor acting from all of the cast, perhaps it was the terrible script, or perhaps it was the dire camera work from start to finish which conspired to make this film one of the worst ever made.

It is unsurprising, then, that this film released straight to disc, as it may have caused riots at the premiere.

If you fancy a very good laugh, or want to see what happens when you watch too many films and try to copy all of them, then watch this film. If you want to see a film with sharks in, watch Jaws.

SHARK IN VENICE sounds like your bog standard SyFy/Asylum monster flick, but it's not. It's actually a low budget, low rent gangster thriller in which the sharks are an added afterthought. Stephen Baldwin stars in a conspiracy plot line involving the search for a hidden treasure by the Italian Mafia. Of course, he's the only one who has a chance of stopping them in their tracks.

The whole of SHARK IN VENICE has a lame and slapdash feel. There's some murky underwater footage and a few scenes of extras being torn apart by sharks in order to justify the title, but for the most part this is a Z-grade thriller without any thrills. The acting is bad, and not just from Baldwin who sleepwalks through the leading role. Danny Lerner produced some great B-movies over the years like Van Damme's IN HELL and Adkins's NINJA but he should have stuck with production instead of trying to direct.

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