L'attaque des requins tueurs

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

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.

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!

A B-Movie that makes a common mistake. It sidelines the perfectly ridiculous/stupid idea of Sharks in Venice, for a plot involving hidden treasure and the mafia. I didn't come here for no stale performances from humans, I wanted stock footage mixed with obvious CGI. I did get quite a bit of this, but not enough. As someone that appreciates the tacky genre, at least give me what you promise. Especially when the title is that clear. If not, then be more creative, such as "Mysteries of Venice", as this can relate to the treasure and the shark. Baldwin is a perfectly fine actor that takes, even this role, pretty seriously. There are unintentional laughs, bad accents and even epic medieval battles. It's got a lot, but not enough.

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