← Back to Reviews
in
Jurassic Shark - or 2 Discount Vin Diesel Muscle Shirts out of 5
Is this a bad movie? Yes. Is it so bad that it deserves to be on top of IMDB's Bottom 100? Definitely not. I think that position is better suited for a movie that espouses an offensive philosophy - I'm looking at you, Saving Christmas - but I digress. Jurassic Shark, on the other hand, just wants viewers to have a fun time. I did, albeit ironically, which to me is the best kind of bad movie experience. I still have to not give credit where it is not due. Firstly, the performances are mediocre, and even during the most intense moments, they have the same conviction the average person has about taking their clothes to the dry cleaner. As for the production values, the special effects of the shark made me laugh more than they filled me with terror, but they also made the shark seem more adorable than threatening. There's a problem when you are compelled to give the villain a pet name. The opening narration and its default font also scream first draft slammed out in ten minutes, and while the director probably intended the shots of the women changing into their bikinis to be titillating, they are so awkward that even Joe Eszterhas would look away from the screen.
Again, like the campaign that made Pitbull perform at a Wal-Mart in Alaska, this movie's extremely low position on the IMDB Bottom 100 reeks of classic Internet dogpiling. Even though there’s a persistent “did the bare minimum” vibe, there is enough effort to disqualify it from "worst movie ever" territory. The plotting and shot composition are competent, and despite a lack of memorable lines, I cannot fault the dialogue that much. The conversation the activist has with the head thief about the stolen painting is not something you will find in the worst movies, for instance. In short, it's bad in the way you hope a movie is when someone suggests you watch one for its badness. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if any sharks are up for adoption on PetFinder.
Is this a bad movie? Yes. Is it so bad that it deserves to be on top of IMDB's Bottom 100? Definitely not. I think that position is better suited for a movie that espouses an offensive philosophy - I'm looking at you, Saving Christmas - but I digress. Jurassic Shark, on the other hand, just wants viewers to have a fun time. I did, albeit ironically, which to me is the best kind of bad movie experience. I still have to not give credit where it is not due. Firstly, the performances are mediocre, and even during the most intense moments, they have the same conviction the average person has about taking their clothes to the dry cleaner. As for the production values, the special effects of the shark made me laugh more than they filled me with terror, but they also made the shark seem more adorable than threatening. There's a problem when you are compelled to give the villain a pet name. The opening narration and its default font also scream first draft slammed out in ten minutes, and while the director probably intended the shots of the women changing into their bikinis to be titillating, they are so awkward that even Joe Eszterhas would look away from the screen.
Again, like the campaign that made Pitbull perform at a Wal-Mart in Alaska, this movie's extremely low position on the IMDB Bottom 100 reeks of classic Internet dogpiling. Even though there’s a persistent “did the bare minimum” vibe, there is enough effort to disqualify it from "worst movie ever" territory. The plotting and shot composition are competent, and despite a lack of memorable lines, I cannot fault the dialogue that much. The conversation the activist has with the head thief about the stolen painting is not something you will find in the worst movies, for instance. In short, it's bad in the way you hope a movie is when someone suggests you watch one for its badness. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if any sharks are up for adoption on PetFinder.