User reviews

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.

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

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!

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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

OK.....not by any stretch oscar worthy. But my threshold for bad movies is about 20 minutes, then I'm gone. But 50 minutes in, I found myself wondering when it would become 2 worthy. Baldwin, is bad. Many of the actors are Italian. But the story is a story, relax folks.

There are about 50 shark species in the Med. In Venice, there are great whites, bulls, tigers, mako's and hammerheads. Sadly, no one swims in Venice because its a sewer, literally. Watching Baldwin swim, all I could think of was coliform.bacteria and the absolutely awful infections they cause.

Marco Polo did ask the pope to send 100 men from Acre to the Mongol empire. The pope agreed seeing it as a great potential foothold for Christianity. Sadly, Marco Polo and his heirs were robbed of their worldly riches. I confess, my love of Venice, as one of the worlds most romantic cities, along with Paris may have added a point to my rating. Lastly, there ARE FAR WORSE MOVIES, given higher ratings.

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.

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.

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? #