It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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? #

This was the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life. The cover is pretty cool, gives a really different view of shark attacks. But the rest of the movie was bad. Real bad. The worst part was the two ''drunken'' people by the stairs, and the shark who jumped 10 meter out of the water to grab them both. It is magical how he grabbed the girl, because in the amazing special effect, i only saw the boy screaming for his live.Also the parts when the 'discovery channel' shark came to kill everybody, i was looking at the Atlantic ocean, complete with sea-gulls.And the best part of all:D : Every time the killer shark is coming, you see a swarm of tropical fish near him. Fish who only lives on 20 meters of depth. -_-.If they had put more sharks in the movie instead of thugs in black, the movie was maybe a little bit better.Even for a low budget movie it was terrible.

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.

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...