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? #

Brought to Italy with news on his father, a man and his girlfriend learn the entire set-up was a ruse by local mafia-heads to assist them in locating priceless artifacts stored in local shark-infested waters and must brave the sharks to rescue her from their clutches.With a lot to like about this one and a couple of minor flaws, this one comes off as a rather impressive entry. One of the best aspects is that the film manages to get a lot of enjoyment out of it's premise, since not only is the Venice location unique enough it offers up plenty of fun times with it. Due to the unique outline of the city and its actual location put to great use here, the set-ups in the streets add a different dimension to it all with a couple of awesome attacks that can only happen in that kind of setting. The attack on the drunken couple walking along the pier or the gondola massacre are scenes that are very hard to realistically pull-off without this kind of situation to be able to handle it, and are highlights of the film. For even more fun we have two extended foot-chases through the unique streets, both featuring lots of different action tactics that make them exciting and a lot of fun. The main reason for this one, though, is the underwater action with the sharks. There's plenty of suspense, as the opening dive and a later one in the same area are just unnerving, chilling and tense being in the darkened, twisting, confusing and unknown tunnels helps, as do the murky waters and occasional bloody shark attack. We get plenty of action as well as several dives are quite interactive with the sharks that serve many nice functions along the way. With an impressive body count here not just from the sharks getting some nice brutal kills as well, these features make the film quite enjoyable. There wasn't a whole lot really wrong with this one. One of the biggest issues with the film is that there's very little to be threatened about from these sharks. Despite displaying the false characteristic of constantly growling, the constant use of stock footage that has already been used in over twenty different films is something to get over. Mixed somewhat nicely into the action, the fact remains that all of these movies feature the same footage over and over so it gets repetitive fast. That it's also mixed somewhat ineffectively with the completely false-looking heads for the attacks is something else entirely. The other flaw to this one is that the film gets really low on shark action for it's middle half. It opens and closes with some good shark action, but it decides on the Mafia subplot for those scenes, and it takes away from the shark story. Beyond an occasional attack, there isn't much mentioned about them, which does deflate the film a tad. These, though, are the film's flaws.Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

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

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...