Why did I even bother watching this movie, when the first movie was so horrible? Well the answers to that question is - I thought that this movie could be an improvement of first and yes this movie was a improvement from the first but not by much!.The Plot: The mutant sharks from Dr. Craven's experiments in "Shark Attack 1" are back, this time choosing Cape Town, South Africa as their hunting ground. Two sisters, Amy and Samantha, while diving near a wreck in the reef are attacked by a shark; Samantha survives. One week later, Dr. Nick Harris and his assistant get the shark and install it as a new attraction at Water World - a Sea World rip-off. When the shark escapes, Nick and Samantha go to hunt it and discover that there are 6 mutant Great Whites living in a cave near the beach, and the Water World's surfing competition might be the next victim! Now they team up with Roy - a Discovery Channel shark hunter - to kill the beasts and save Cape Town.The reason i gave 2 out because the acting from everyone is this movie was better then acting in shark attack but still dose not mean it was good 2/10

Both the plot of the film, and the acting within it, offended my eyes. Personally, and I believe anyone unfortunate enough to see this monstrous creation would agree, I think that there should be an enquiry as to why the actors and producers of this film have not been brought to trial for crimes against the human race! The sharks don't look real, they may as well have been made of plastic and filmed in a bathtub; the directing is about as effective as liquid mercury in cleaning mud off someone in a shower; and the acting is more wooden than the amazon forest. In other words this film manages to incorporate three important materials: plastic, metal and wood - it does not, however, entertain a person looking for a good film.DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

this movie could be called a blatant rip-off of "Jaws 3",at least the beginning of it.however it has an added twist and it's a much better movie.the shark attacks are really bloody and violent in this one,and the are frenetic at times.i'm not sure if this movie is better than the first,but it's still pretty good.again there's lots of action,and the sharks are fear inspiring.the acting is pretty good.the movie is a bit too melodramatic at times and lags once in awhile.even so,it's an entertaining movie with some thrills and some nail biting tension.there are a lot worse movies out there in the genre and in general.if you wanna fill 90 minutes or so,you could do a lot worse,and you may even enjoy it.my vote for "Shark Attack 2" is 7/10

"Shark Attack 2" continues the trend of crazed / mutant / deformed animals attacking humans in the horror sub-genre. A sub-genre that never really seems to produce anything decent - there are a few exceptions of course, like Megalodon: Shark Attack 3 (am I joking?) but Shark Attack 2 is pretty awful.When a great white shark kills Samantha Peterson's (Nikita Ager) sister, Michael Fancisco (Danny Keogh) the owner of a new aquarium / amusement park wants it captured and put on display. Dr. Nick Harris (hottie Thorsten Kaye) knows that it is a bad idea, but does as his employer requests, which only leads to another series of people killed by sharks - sharks that now swim in a group (oh, and they roar). Nick and Samantha have a romance that blossom and are joined on their shark hunt by Roy Bishop (Daniel Alexander), an Australian animal documentary maker.The acting is decent enough for this kind of movie from Kaye, Ager and Alexander, but the film is quite clearly of low production values and over all not that exciting. It's also plagued by a terrible score and a couple of painful songs, and as with Shark Attack 3, plenty of ancient stock shark footage from documentaries is inserted throughout the film and none of the killings are graphic. It's a shame Kaye didn't get to wear his wetsuit a bit more - that would have made the movie a lot more exciting.