Should you see it? No. There's plenty of other cartilaginous fish in the sea.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Dinoshark (2010)
How bad is it? It tries to be a serious shark attack film, which doesn't work.
Should you see it? No. There's plenty of other cartilaginous fish in the sea.
This Roger Corman production is less a sequel to "Dinocroc" than a direct take-off of the original 1978 Piranha, as the monster gobbles up tourists from Alaska to Mexico. The characters are actually developed a bit - the girls in and out of bikinis are very well developed (wink, wink) - the cinematography is pretty good (excepting the CGI monster), and the plot is okay. Well, the plot was okay when you saw it the first time; there's an event that must go on despite deaths, the monster can only be killed with a shot directly between the eyes, there's the usual cast: greedy bad guy, hunky hero, brainy heroine, sidekick, shark fodder. If it shows up on television late at night, it makes a passable timewaster.
Should you see it? No. There's plenty of other cartilaginous fish in the sea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment