Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

FountainPen This is rubbish. Don't bother with it. A fail in all respects. However, as with many terrible flicks, I note that there are some very high-rating reviews by IMdB members who have viewed/reviewed only ONE or very few films. Here's one review, for example, giving a 10/10 rating, by someone who has rated ONLY this movie, no others: " The first truly epic film of the decade 11 March 2009 by jryan154 " Nonsense! Is that a kid writing? A cast member? A friend of the producers? Please, IMdB, think up some procedure to stop these idiots from posting such crap. Thank you. I advise everyone to avoid this movie. HERE's another member giving this rotten piece of crud 10/10: " pure genius sj29-17 October 2008 " Is there any hope? #

les6969 This film started out with so much promise, it is a good idea for what could have been a good film, but it just got worse and worse. The story was full of holes: The treasure not found for centuries is found by the Baldwin character in minutes. ALL the mafia divers seemed to know where it was but for some reason they needed Baldwin to show them the way? The continuity errors are basically the whole film. The bit where the villains chase the Baldwin. Down the same two streets. Over and over and over… The same scenes replayed during the end fight. The mafia guys and their amazing ability to multiply. Baldwin has his leg bitten off then it regrows again The same shot appears at least 3 times to represent people being eaten. No matter how many times he gets hit in the face Baldwin has no marks on him whatsoever. The acting is truly awful although the main bad guy has a good face to play an evil bond villain. I watched this film on DVD and doubt I could even give it away now!

Doctor Biobrain For as much as my wife and I enjoyed this film (and yes, we did enjoy it), it was almost entirely due to the shark. I mean, I normally don't even watch this sort of thing, but the title alone pulled me in. "Sharks in Venice" I sez to myself, that's GOT to be good. And sure, I was entertained. But...why wasn't there more shark? I was expecting like Jaws in Venice or something. But this was more like Indiana Jones in Venice (with Shark), and that's just not good enough. Hell, you could have cut the shark out completely and little would have been lost storywise. I mean, why the Mafia stuff? Jaws didn't need Mafia guys. Chief Brody didn't need to rescue his kidnapped wife. It's such a simple formula: Shark in water. Shark killing people in water. Need to get shark out of water. Let's go get that shark. Shark dead. That seems pretty straight forward to me and they even had a nice backdrop of Venice to work with. How can you screw up a formula like that? I'll tell you how, rip-off the third Indiana Jones movie and muck it up with mobsters, that's how. It's like they weren't even trying.And the weirdest part is that there wasn't even a good reason the shark was in the movie. And you know what? I think the shark could tell. You could feel it in his lackluster performance. He knew he wasn't really the star of this movie, despite the title. He realized they had just taken some other movie idea and thrown shark in it to make it interesting. But that's the thing, the shark was the best part of the movie. So why not make it a shark movie? And again, I'm sure the shark was asking himself that in the few scenes he had, which would explain why he just didn't seem to be giving it his all. Was he better than Baldwin or Johannson? Well, duh! But that's not saying much, is it? Even a DEAD shark would have out-performed the girlfriend.So was it a good movie? Well, I laughed a lot, so that's something. And the "plot" was just threadbare enough for you to really notice all the glaring holes in it, so that's always fun. But really, the one thing really lacking in Shark in Venice was the shark. And that's a shame. Perhaps some day a savvy filmmaker will put good use to having sharks in the canals of Venice. But until then, you're stuck with this one instead. I wonder if the Snakes on a Plane guys are busy...

bananawolf 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