Shark in Venice (2008) User Reviews (37)

Shark Attack 4: Baldwin's Revenge

[Red-Barracuda · 2/10 · 30 September 2009]

One of the whispering Baldwins travels to Venice to battle with a shark and a man with a beard.

Yet another cheap sharksploitation entry with the new angle of shark attacks in an urban environment. Hence, Venice. Although to be perfectly honest they hardly make the most of this potentially interesting, and agreeably moronic, set-up as the shark hardly attacks anyone other than various divers. And that sort of thing could happen in any shark movie let's be frank. Anyway the odd occasions that the shark does decide to attack tourists and drunken people on the surface prove to be the film's highlights, and these are few and far between.

Shark in Venice is effectively an action-thriller that pits good guy Baldwin against the machine-gun toting Mafioso bad guys. There's lots of shoot-outs and running about. The damn shark almost becomes incidental. Not exactly what we want. A much more accurate title for this film would have been Baldwin In Venice.

More Shark, Please!

[doctorbiobrain2005 · 1/10 · 3 February 2009]

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...

Embarrassingly bad

[dug278 · 1/10 · 22 December 2008]

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.

Tripe with more than a couple of onions

[bananawolf · 5/10 · 8 January 2009]

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

Shark in Venice: Really!?

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 16 September 2018]

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

Time for a career change, Stephen?

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 16 October 2010]

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!

As a shark movie it's terrible, as an overall movie it's even worse

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 11 September 2014]

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

Bad, even by genre standards

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 27 November 2015]

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.

One of the worse Films of all time

[les6969 · 1/10 · 11 August 2009]

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!

I have just wasted an hour and a half of my life

[lainy1982 · 1/10 · 15 January 2009]

From the beginning and the terrible cheap opening scenes and credits, I just knew this film was going to be awful, but I thought I would give it a chance. How wrong was I? There is a reason why Stephen Baldwin is not the most famous for acting amongst his family and if he got paid for this film then he should give his wage to charity.

I noticed blips in this film from the very start. I did have a good chuckle, when Baldwin, who is underwater with breathing apparatus in his mouth which you can clearly see his lips round, still manages to talk to his fiancée via an imaginary radio without moving his lips!! Extraordinary!! Then there was the big chase in the film, which the cameras felt the need to zoom in closely to Baldwin's face to make it look like he had time to think about where to run next.

The underwater fight scene near the end of the disaster movie was my favourite. This fight lasted for a good ten minutes whilst cops invaded the building in their dozens, but yet no one came up for air, but miraculously didn't drown. Must have been wearing that amazing breathing apparatus again??!! It's clear this film was done on the cheap (they used the same scene of a police officer sliding down a rope into the building 3 times in the space of 6 minutes) but it really was a poor show, no pun intended. I was expecting better and was hoping for a good thriller/horror to make me sit on edge of my seat, but unfortunately all I got was a film that would have made watching paint drying more fun.

One of the better low-budget shark films

[caro_partridge · 8/10 · 11 October 2008]

Disclaimer: This movie does not get 8/10 for its subtle plot or Oscar-winning performances.

This is definitely a movie for fans of the creature feature, and no-one else. Anyone who doesn't enjoy low-budget shark films will think it's terrible :-) But if you're looking for the following in your creature feature, this is definitely a fabulously entertaining example of the genre:

1. Continuity errors

2. Horrendous acting from the foreign bit-part actors

3. Villains who wear black, look menacing and pull villainous faces (just to make sure we know whose side they're on)

4. Nonsensical plot ("I put these sharks in the water when they were young and waited for them to grow up! Mwaahah!") (So...you were....5 when you did this? They're big sharks!)

5. Plot holes as wide as...well, the maw of a large canal-raised shark.

The reason this is so good is because, unlike other creature features, it's packed-full of (silly) plot. Too many shark films are actually quite dull - the acting simply isn't good enough to carry the single ("There are some villains and sharks here for reason X") plot through, and at some points, the director actually tries to take the movie seriously. (Bad idea.) See "Shark Attack: Megaladon" for details – fabulous final 30 minutes when the Mummy Megaladon comes out and starts eating boats; really dull first hour when the baby megaladon attacks a few people with lots of stock footage of sharks thrown in. And as for Raging Sharks...well, OK, let's not mention Raging Sharks. Just hide it at the back of the DVD collection and pretend we didn't spend real money on it.

Shark In Venice avoids this spectacularly. Not only do we have a couple (or more) monster Great Whites swimming around the Venice Canals, randomly leaping out and attacking villains / drunken bad actors possibly about to have premarital sex / red-t-shirted gondoliers, but we have an Indiana Jones subplot complete with trap-setting Medici Knights (who apparently stowed their treasure in the middle ages by carrying it underwater through the canals, but let's not explore that too far) and some ninja chainsaw-wielding stunt-biking mafia. Indiana Jones AND mafia guys AND sharks? What's not to like?

So, (without plot spoilers…as if that's important in a film like this; one of the other good things about it is that you can play the "who lives and who dies a sharky death?" game within the first two minutes with 100% accuracy), some particular highlights of this movie include:

1. The scene with the appallingly bad blonde whose boyfriend is trying to seduce her. Please note the backward-flying spray at the end of the scene (reminiscent of the bit in Anaconda where the waterfall flows backwards) and the fact that after the boyfriend has been Sharked (look, it's not a Spoiler, he's a drunk guy hanging around the water trying to seduce a bad actress; he may even have actually been wearing a red t-shirt!), the blonde has completely vanished. There hasn't been acting this bad since Jenny Mcarthy's stint in Python. It's AWESOME.

2. The bit where the villains chase the Baldwin. Down the same two streets. Over and over and over…

3. The bit where the Baldwin tracks down his girlfriend by finding her scarf on a boat when she visibly lost said scarf scenes earlier.

4. The mafia guys and their amazing ability to multiply. Enough said.

5. The random diver villains who suddenly know where the treasure is despite the fact that a key point to the movie is that the Leading Bearded Brooding Villain DOESN'T know and so needs the Baldwin's help, by foul means or…well…OK, just by foul means.

6. The scene where the Baldwin has a dream, and he's blatantly dreaming about scenes from all the other Shark Attack movies, as that's where all the footage is from. (Spot the baby megaladon breaking into the ship!)

7. The stock footage. We know it, we love it, we've seen almost all of it before. There are some good new shots, such as a great white gulping something down – the director evidently liked it as the same shot appears at least 3 times to represent people being eaten.

8. The fact that "slo-mo footage with dramatic music and close-ups" = "really big shark".

9. The way the great whites leap like Makos. Some definite homage to Deep Blue Sea there. (Yes I know that they DO sometimes leap out of the ocean, but these stunt-sharks took it to a whole new level. Again, what's not to like?!)

10. The terrible fin-shots. You know what I'm talking about.

11. The fact that these sharks are more vicious and hungry than Jaws by far. And possessed of an almost supernatural ability to find villainous divers. Perhaps they're descendants of Jaws 4…

12. The main bad guy. He's a classic!

So, why does this movie not rate 10/10? Because the filmmakers don't (in the midst of the treasure hunting, booby-trapped underwater caves and chainsaw-wielding ninja stunt-biker mysteriously-multiplying mafiosos) really make enough of the fact that there are SHARKS IN VENICE. As in, that place where you HAVE to cross the water to get anywhere. So many missed opportunities for carnage! In fact there are really only a few scenes among the stock footage and diving "will the sharks appear" scenes (answer= yes, inevitably) where the sharks really have a good old rampage among random unsuspecting Venetian tourists, complete with appallingly amusing CGI. They could have done it so much more. We really wouldn't have minded.

Like rotting fish ... this smells ........... like ....... "instant cult classic"

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 3 January 2010]

In the first underwater scene, we get to see obvious plastic plants growing in almost total darkness, and a stock footage shark viciously attacking three divers in a row, one by one, without the other divers even noticing. Next we get to see more shark stock footage, only this time the sharks are surrounded by schools of colorful fish that only swim in tropical waters, 1000 miles from Venice. After our hero, Stephen Baldwin is nearly torn in half by a Great White, he manages to walk out of the hospital the next day without a scratch. Even more hilarious than the stock footage sharks are the worse C.G.I. sharks, as one mafia diver appears to actually stick his head into a sharks mouth instead of the other way around. But wait there's more. Stephen Baldwin shouting to a policeman "He's got a gun", as he's being sprayed with bullets by a mafia goon. Steathy mafia bad guys attacking a sleeping Baldwin in the middle of the night, yet when he escapes his hotel, people are strolling and shopping as if it were 12 noon. The mafia plan for protecting the treasure is brilliant, putting baby sharks into the canals and when they grow too big they cannot escape. The only flaw seems to be that they have nothing to eat, as no fish or baby seals are living in the polluted canals. The finale is beyond belief, sort of a montage of an underwater fight that lasts for minutes on end with neither combatant surfacing for air, stock shark footage, a girlfriend standing in the middle of an explosive gun battle without taking cover, more stock shark footage, a hovering police helicopter that has nothing to do with the story, and unbelievably the treasure stays where it is, and the shark problem is never dealt with. Bad movie festivals should ban "Sharks in Venice", as this is unfair competition for even Ed Wood's masterpieces. The ridiculous story, bad acting, terrible effects, and most importantly, all this is taken seriously, insures "Sharks in Venice" to be voted the worst of the worst, unless of course there is to be a sequel? We can only dream of such a wonder. - MERK

Merciful heavens

[jhsanders-1 · 1/10 · 31 December 2009]

Let's get the formalities over with – this is a film starring Stephen Baldwin and some other people who must have been bribed about a group of divers who are trying to find some treasure in the waters of Venice. What they find instead is a great white shark which rips a few of them apart. The Mafia are involved somehow, so that results in some gunfights and someone getting dragged off the street in full view of a public seemingly too bored – sorry, scared to intervene. They find the treasure, the Mafia wants it, the shark gets away.

Thank God that's over. Something in this made me laugh so much it hurt. During the diving expeditions, the divers are talking to each other as if over radios. This would be fine if they didn't all have whacking great regulators shoved in their mouths, making it impossible to move their lips. Once you've noticed this it all falls apart, and you'll notice it very quickly. Trouble is, you'll notice a huge list of other things as well, namely:

* The terrible acting

* The terrible script

* The terrible Italian accents

* The terrible plot

* The terrible shark attacks

* The terrible extras

* Editing that makes the film look like it was pieced together from a Venice Tourist Board video, the out-takes from Jaws, and a film about Boating For Fun and Profit

The truth is that many viewers won't get past the first twenty minutes, but for those who do another hour of complete tripe awaits. I found that the best way of passing the time was to create the Observer's Book of Bad Extras, and I encourage you to give yourself a tick for spotting the following:

* The hotel doorman who looks at the production crew just after his five seconds of outrageously poor acting

* The two men sitting absolutely stock-still in a police station clearly wondering whether they should be moving

* The men in a café who don't notice when a someone runs through the room and falls into some boxes right behind them

* The policeman who takes a bullet and falls to the floor without a wince of pain

* The man with a newspaper who continues to read it as the Mafia kidnap someone directly in front of him

* The guy bartering in the market who watches the camera approaching

There's also the moment when the treasure is discovered, which, along with the rest of the scene leading up to it, is like a particularly poor Disney sequence. The rest of it is a cross between James Bond, The Mummy, and Wildlife on One. That is, the stuff from James Bond, The Mummy and Wildlife on One that ended up on the cutting room floor. During the 'climax', which is a lot of gunfire and some police boats, the 'eclectic' soundtrack excels itself by breaking into a jolly piratey-type theme and then something that rivals Psycho for violin-related insanity.

As for the sharks, there are a lot of blurry, dark moments and copious amounts of red colouring to prove that they couldn't get one.

The extras amount to a short making-of and the theatrical trailer, both of which highlight a film taking itself and its value far too seriously. This is Jaws for people who have had a frontal lobotomy.

www.denofgeek.com

This is bad, real bad ...don't watch it...don't buy it

[runaway-2007 · 1/10 · 1 November 2008]

The only thing i want back is the damn time i spent watching this crap till the end but i think i kinda enjoyed the stupidity of the director and every person that took part of this joke. So much gaps and mistakes. - first thing i spotted was that stupid scene where the blonde dumb babe just vanishes from the dock because she couldn't be "kept" by the CGI dude ! :) - also before this was that scene where i thought Baldwin looses one leg because of the shark attack and if you watch closely when he wakes up in the hospital and talks to the police guys it looks like he is really missing one leg ...don't have to mention how i felt when i saw him in the next scene walking out of the hospital safe and sound ! :)))) - i laughed when Baldwin was chased by those clowns on the same ally over and over...i felt like watching some crappy cartoons :D - mafia guys suddenly know exactly where the treasure is but this is not all ...how in the hell is Baldwin so sure where they took him so he could find the way to the treasure in the milky waters at night ???? omg there are so many mistakes... giving this 1 out of 10 just because i cant go below 1 :(((

So don't waste the time or money because this is junk ...nothing more

Truly Awful

[CJDavis-uk · 1/10 · 24 March 2009]

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 (2008)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 3/10 · 26 December 2011]

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.

Pitfull

[thom_killer · 2/10 · 28 February 2012]

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.

Action movie with sharks

[doctorsmoothlove · 4/10 · 21 July 2019]

"Shark in Venice" is the final film in Danny Lerner's unofficial shark trilogy and is one of the better entries in it. Given the title, you would think that sharks would be a big part of the experience. In actuality, the title is a pun. While carnivorous fish are part of the movie, the titular "shark" is a mafia leader searching for lost treasure buried underneath the canals of Venice.

The mafia boss recruit's David's father to search for the treasure and his diving crew is devoured in a poorly edited stock footage shark attack. The diving sequences pre and post shark attack are alright. They are at least well lit and the actors appear to fill up the screen. It does look as if the actors are in tanks though. Anyway, this changes when the sharks attack. The same stock footage shorts are frequently used as a victim is surrounded in red food dye. The attacks are edited in an incomprehensible manner and you can never tell what is happening. There is at least one fully CGI scene of a shark leaping out of the water. It looks really bad but I would have preferred that approach to the use of stock footage. At least you can see the CGI attack!

Most of the film takes place outside of the water. David travels to Venice with his bride to investigate his father's death and learns that the lost treasure of the Medici family is in Venice. There is a flashback to when the treasure was buried containing the only medieval battle scene in any shark movie so far.

The hand-to-hand combat is well coordinated and impactful. The mafia people kidnap David's bride and chase him through the streets at gunpoint. At one point, David traps one of the them and nearly decapitates him with a saw blade in an intense interrogation. My only complaint is the excessive use of slowdown. It is common for action movies to slow down to show the impact of a blow to someone. This movie does that too often in sometimes random shots like when David is fleeing from the mafia. Maybe it was to hide the cast's lack of ability to do all the intended stunts?

Of course David finds the treasure and its guarded by Indiana Jones-style traps. Maybe Raiders of the Lost Shark would have been a better title? The music in these segments is noteworthy in how well it accompanies the scene. The rest of the score isn't bad either.

The presence of sharks in venice is never addressed. They were there at the start of the movie and are there at its end. That unfinished plot thread is indicative of the lack of relevant of the sharks to the entire movie. They really could have been excluded at no detriment. Go into this film with the mindset that it's just an action film with a few shark scenes and you'll enjoy it more.

Why did we bother with this...

[doggydog2312 · 2/10 · 1 August 2011]

So ummm, OK, I went to see this expecting a low budget trash firm, worth a couple of laughs at its expense, maybe along with it too. And that it delivered.

That doesn't change the fact that it's most of the time simply too insultingly dumb to be fun.

So there you have Baldwin probably trying to play Till Lindemann playing a constipated yet muscular/trigger happy university professor. You have Bulgarians trying to play Italian and the least convincing Italian turns out to really be Italian. Whoa.

Trying to list everything that's, erm, idiotic? about the movie would take all day. Let's just list some (another spoiler alert). Baldwin's character needing assurance if the guy he saw ripped in half survived or not. Mafia guys just multiplying in thin air (mitosis?). Police chasing armed villains running unarmed through the same corridor over and over again (the villains & Baldwin do the same, mind you). Baldwin losing a leg apparently and then growing it back (miraculous recoveries galore!). Sharks growing too big to escape the channels (WTF) yet small enough to fit into spaces for which people think are too small for them to pass. Reusing of scenes and props in general to a painful extent. Etc. etc. etc.

The random "shark attack" scenes are crap, but really funny crap, so ludicrously unbelievable that they are actually enjoyable and the best part of the movie.

Dunno why I'm giving this a 2. Really don't know. Visually, musically, story-wise, it's abysmal.

Incredible

[gorgeouzz · 1/10 · 29 August 2010]

Oh my god... I'm lost for words.. it was that good!!! I wish they just use the funds to grant aspiring film makers who can make a better film with less than a grand! That would've been much more productive than making this comedy piece. Oh wait, it's meant to be a thriller? Anyways, it seems that words are coming back to me again, omg... wait a second.. those nipples!!! I'm lost for words again!!! --edit-- I can't even publish this with less than 10 lines, but what if it doesn't need 10 lines to describe it? Anyways, I'm just going to rattle about the amazing acting, dying, facial expressions, CGI shark that happens to bite everyone else and kills them but for some reason Baldwin is invincible.. super healing powers. wow... wait, why is Laura's blouse just as see-through as Baldwin's??? is this meant to attract more audience?? I can see her nipples too through the bra! nipples! eek! OK enough --edit--

The first truly epic film of the decade

[jryan154 · 10/10 · 11 March 2009]

The 40s had Casablanca. The 50s had On the Waterfront. The 60s had Bonnie and Clyde. The 70s had The Godfather I and II. The 80s had Raging Bull. The 90s had The Shawhshank Redemption.

As we now edge deeper into this decade, we have been presented with many great films. "The Departed," "No Country for Old Men," "Gangs of New York," and "Crash" are a few that come to mind. What has been missing, however, is that one epic film. The film that people will remember when they look back 20-30 years from now. The film that defines its generation. The film that defines its times. Our wait is over. That film has arrived. And it comes to us from Venice. And it has been delivered to us by sharks. Ladies and gentleman, I present to you, "Sharks in Venice."

Just as Mickey Rourke did in "The Wrestler," Stephen Baldwin seems to have revived his career with his Oscar worthy role as David Franks. After starring along side Pauly Shore in the critically acclaimed film, "Bio-Dome," critics everywhere were wondering; Is there any limit to his potential as an actor? Are we on the verge of a new James Stewart or Robert DeNiro?... Sadly, that potential was not realized as many had hoped an expected. With this role however, we see that flash of greatness that could have been.

Baldwin stars as David Franks, a college professor who heads to Venice, Italy after hearing word of his fathers death in what appears to be a tragic diving accident in the waters of Venice. As he quickly realizes however, this "accident" is no accident at all--at least not from the shark's perspective.

With a film as deeply layered as this, with heavy usage of symbolism, metaphors (the sharks clearly being a metaphor for the current economic recession that is 'biting' away at U.S. citizens), dramatic character development, and an extremely intricate plot, it is no wonder that the film went straight to DVD (along with other classics such as "Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch" and "Cinderella III: A Twist in Time") as the material would be way over the head of the casual film-goer. Lucky enough for me, I was able to obtain this hidden gem of a movie off of Amazon, and have been struck with awe at what I have viewed.

In a film that combines mystery, treasure, romance and sharks, while being painted out along the surreal backdrop of the Venetian Lagoon, this film is something to be cherished for years to come.

I cannot give any more of the film away, as it would be an injustice to have someone not witness this epic masterpiece unfold on screen for themselves. Therefore, I will leave you with a quote from the movie, which will undoubtedly be tagged alongside lines the likes of "You can't handle the truth," and "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse." Near the beginning of the film, David Franks is questioning the true nature of his father's death, and claiming that it was a shark attack that really killed him. Captain Bonasera responds to this claim by saying, "We don't have sharks in Venice." Oh Captain Bonasera...how wrong you are.

Grade: 5 out of 5 shark-bites

The movie is very good

[keysersoze-11 · 7/10 · 11 November 2008]

OK. Let me say first that this movie is no Jaws, by a long shot but it is still entertaining. I thought before I watched this yet another cheesy corny movie with too many special effects and to my surprise there were very little. Its a B movie and I don't want to hear people whining saying, come on, a shark, in VENICE!!!!, its a horror, not a factual movie, Horror can be made up to whatever you want, take a look at Godzilla, Lake placid, the rogue, black water, all wonderful classic monster B movies and they will never die

OK, there were I think two scenes which was cheesy, but other than this, a good solid monster movie but with an added bonus of treasure.

This movie has some good actors in, Stephen of course, and I really like Giacomo Gonnella who played Clemenza, he was very chilled out,witty. The best line of this movie and I quote:

"Your going to be in heaven in just a moment, but first, i'm going to put you through hell"

What a wonderful line for a bad guy to say :), So lets recap, if your looking for Jaws, or Deep blue sea then this is not the movie for you. Try it, you will be pleasantly surprised what a B movie can do. You do not need millions of dollars to achieve what this movie has set out to do, in fact, if this was a blockbuster hit, it would of been worse with pathetic actors and countless special effects all done with CGI rubbish

Dreadful attempt at horror ~ painful to watch ~ just skip it !

[FountainPen · 1/10 · 12 May 2018]

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? #

Nothing to see here

[kevin_robbins · 2/10 · 16 August 2023]

Shark in Venice (2008) is a movie that I recently watched on Tubi. The storyline follows some treasure hunters in Venice who has a diver eaten by a shark. The son of the diver comes to Venice to uncover why his father was diving there and what killed him...

This movie is directed by Danny Lerner (Search and Destroy) and stars Stephen Baldwin (The Usual Suspects), Vanessa Johansson (Battle for Tera), Hilda van der Meulen (Attraction) and Bashar Rahal (Whiteout).

The settings in this are magnificent and beautiful, it's the best part of the movie. The storyline is ridiculous, the villain is ridiculous and Stephen Baldwin being convinced by his agent to be in this movie is ridiculous. There's scenes he's Chuck Norris and others he's Indiana Jones. Not sure what he was thinking when he took this part. The shark attack scenes are awful. It's just a shark swimming in the water and a cutaway to blood in the water and floating body parts. So disappointing.

Overall, there's nothing to see here. I would score this a 2/10 and recommend skipping it.

Takes the 'Nice' out of 'Venice'

[Fraudzilla · 1/10 · 21 March 2022]

Released before the slew of 'ironic' shark movies became a thing, seeing a title like 'Shark in Venice' really stood out on the shop shelf, especially for an idiot who loves bad movies like me. I spend a great deal of time in Italy, so the ridiculous concept held double appeal for me.

The movie follows David Franks (Stephen Baldwin) an American university lecturer who is summoned to Venice, Italy when his father goes missing on a mysterious scuba dive in restricted waters. His fiancée Laura (Vanessa Johansson) joins him as he investigates his father's disappearance.

It turns out his father was searching for the ancient treasure of the Medici, which David stumbles across while diving. He is forced to go back into the shark infested waters as the local mafia, led by Clemenza (Giacomo Gonella) kidnaps Laura and force him to take them to the treasure, but will they be ready for what they find beneath the waves...

Now, I realise how ridiculous this may sound, but I actually had something resembling hopes for this movie. With its waterway streets, Venice is a place unlike any other, and surprisingly few movies take advantage of it - the one exception being the wonderfully atmospheric Don't Look Now. The concept of predators lurking in these canals is something that, in the right hands, could have been wonderful. Couple that with Italy's horror output being one of its most Internationally popular cinema outputs (even if I'm not a fan) there was definitely potential to take this ridiculous premise somewhere. Then 'Nu Image' flashed up on the screen and any hopes and expectations went right down the pan.

For those unfamiliar with the low budget studio, around the turn of the Century they seemed to be on a mission to single handedly keep the Creature Feature alive with a slew of films like Octopus, Spiders and Crocodile and they sequels. Most were terrible. Among the worst offenders were their 'Shark Attack' films, which didn't even have the grace to unleash rubber sharks, using almost entirely stock footage. Shark in Venice is very much the spiritual successor of these movies, and is every bit as bad, without the grace of even doing so in an amusing manner.

The worst thing about movie is that the sharks are basically an aside to the plot. They are just there to try create some buzz about a tiresome treasure hunt story. When it's revealed why they are in Venice (the mafia put them there to stop others looking for the treasure...) it makes even less sense given that they keep eating their divers. Have the writers ever actually been to Venice and seen how clarty the water is? (certainly none of the cast did making this movie given that it's filmed in Bulgaria...) this called for some ridiculous Sci Fi Sharks, but nobody here was that creative sadly. The only kicks I got were references to Italian footballers Francesco Totti and Alessandro DelPiero with a character and street named for them respectively.

The acting is led by the Baldwin that was in The Usual Suspects, who whispers every line and is a highly unconvincing action hero. Keeping the theme of less famous siblings, the female lead is Scarlett Johansson's older sister, which is about the only noteworthy thing about her role here. The rest of the cast are, well, Direct-To-Video level. Neither great not awful.

The effects are the real disappointment. 96% of all shark scenes are stock footage, most of it clearly shot in open sea, not claustrophobic canals. The few CGI shots there are feature bland effects, but they are amongst the more entertaining scenes so I'll let them off.

Shark in Venice feels like a wasted premise on 2 fronts; it doesn't use its unique setting to make the below the radar chiller it could have been, nor does it deliver its ridiculous premise to offer a cheesy laugh riot. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, no matter how good the title looks on the shelf.