Clarissa Mora The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

FountainPen 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? #

PrianCohen Apart from the technical blunders, this film is really rewriting history. Not only did the Medici rule over Venice, as some people have pointed out. Some other groundbreaking discoveries made by Dr. Stephen "Indiana" Baldwin:King Louis XIV. (1638-1715) was a 13th century crusader. 17-year-old Marco Polo had a fleet of his own and was, also, a crusader. In 1271, crusaders conquered Crete (fiercely ignoring the fact that the island had been under Venetian rule for almost 70 years).Solomo's hoard was brought to Venice on a galleon called "Stout", three centuries before this kind of ship was developed. - And finallya hidden truth only for those lucky enough to listen to the German audio track: the "Stout" wasn't a galleon after all, but a "balloon" (listen to it closely!) - five hundred years before the Montgolfiers!

les6969 This film started out with so much promise, it is a good idea for what could have been a good film, but it just got worse and worse. The story was full of holes: The treasure not found for centuries is found by the Baldwin character in minutes. ALL the mafia divers seemed to know where it was but for some reason they needed Baldwin to show them the way? The continuity errors are basically the whole film. The bit where the villains chase the Baldwin. Down the same two streets. Over and over and over… The same scenes replayed during the end fight. The mafia guys and their amazing ability to multiply. Baldwin has his leg bitten off then it regrows again The same shot appears at least 3 times to represent people being eaten. No matter how many times he gets hit in the face Baldwin has no marks on him whatsoever. The acting is truly awful although the main bad guy has a good face to play an evil bond villain. I watched this film on DVD and doubt I could even give it away now!

Doctor Biobrain 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...