Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Welshfilmfan I really enjoy B Movies so I decided to watch 'Megalodon' on an obscure Cable Channel, merely down to it's title, I wasn't expecting a lot & my Expectations were rock bottom as it was, I thought it might be Trashy but Watchable, like the Sci-Fi Channel productions, or something in the vein of 'Shark Attack'.... Nothing could prepare me for this virtually unwatchable pile of steaming crap.It's set on a oil rig supposedly staffed by a mere 22 people....if you thought that wasn't many....actually in this entire movie you only see SIX of them throughout (probably as the budget only covered half a dozen 'actors' at $500 a pop) The acting was actually worse than I expected, The 'Actors' here was so awful they wouldn't even make it as bit players in a Steven Segal Movie... but I Don't mind bad acting as long as it's action filled....erm... this isn't.......NOTHING HAPPENS, It's all filmed in a broom cupboard of about 8 square feet. There is No Tension & No Action - I was bored out of my mind while watching, but persevered To the end, so I could save others from this dreadful fate by writing this review.Everything in this movie is fake, from the oil rig, to the snow, to the helicopter and and even the boat at the end (which does look like the kind of boats kids push in the city lake near where I live) and also obviously the shark using the worst possible computer generated effects.I would be amazed if more than a $100k was spent on this dire & painful mess.1/2 * out of *****

disdressed12 hmmm,what to say about this movie.very,very low budget.CGI that looks very shiny and nice,but completely fake.for most of the movie,nothing happens,except a lot of talking.when the shark finally makes an appearance,it is underwhelming.it does not look that menacing.there is zero tension in the movie.there are only 2 good things in this movie.one is that the acting,surprisingly,is not that bad.and 2,there are some deep underwater scenes showing some very unique and beautiful creatures.they are very obviously CGI,but they look very pretty,nonetheless.i sat trough the whole movie to see the shark.i wish i hadn't.60 minutes of boredom for a few minutes of shark footage is not worth it.it's obvious they had zero budget,so they shouldn't have attempted this type of movie.i'll give it 3/10

Wite Stik This movie was released the same year as Spider-man 2, Shrek 2, Shark Tale, The Incredibles, and The Day After Tomorrow, you would expect some descent graphics. 2004 was a year of amazing CG achievements. This movie just kills that reputation. It looks like they hired a relative of the producers who knew how to work a PC. Everything is computer animated. Everything looks like crap. They try to blur the images by putting tons of light around it, but it doesn't hide the disgrace. I am a pacific islander, I grew up with fish right in my backyard. The fish in this movie don't look like fish and especially don't move like them.This is not worth your time, rent it and let your grandparents watch it, it should please them.

Cedric Sagne If you were tempted to buy this on DVD, or pay for your seat, tough luck. Borrowed it from my local library and obviously this does not go anywhere near the now-cheesy-but-still-a-classic JAWS or the ABYSS from which it borrows.Why did I give 1 to "Narnia" and 2 to this? For the skill in making something terrible in both cases with: 1- loads of money and a worldwide manipulation campaign 2- no money and no marketing gurus behind.This is still something that does not deserve to be watched twice, maybe not even once. CGI is still something you would be proud of if you got it out of your own computer. If anything, this film illustrates the concept of George Lucas who claims that CGI and digital cinema will bring filming within the reach of new talents. These were not the ones he referred to, as the script, the actors, the special effects remain terrible (by today's standards... check King Kong 1933 and enjoy), but some classics were made on a shoestring and we saw worse stuff done by great actors and directors.It is no wonder this is as cheesy as it gets, but the Academy of Cinema also has its bad students.