Sharkula (2022)
1/10
The budget must have been around $500
15 March 2023
I'm not even sure where to start. I've seen bad movies before, and I've acted on stage with poor actors, but this movie has both in spades.

I think most of it was literally shot on somebody's tracphone. The refresh rate gives about half the film a feel of slow motion that can make you queasy just watching it. The actors (bless them) are trying but it's pretty easy to see that they're amateurs of the first kind working with a script that needs a lot of help. Nobody seems to really show any emotion in their roles, they just read the lines. The guy that plays Renfield kind of reminds me of somebody imitating John Lovitz but I was distracted by and had to laugh at his eyes moving back and forth as he read from his cue cards. Every 10 minutes or so the film cuts to a character (somebody's girlfriend maybe?) of a woman standing on a beach twirling some things with lights. No idea what that's all about? It's about the only parts of the film shot with a passable camera.

The set is someone's poorly lit house and unfinished basement, and special effects are limited to a rubber shark head, a rubber bat, and some stuff done on somebody's laptop. They really should name their company Amateur Studios, because this is the kind of stuff you see from a High School drama class.

I give it one and a half stars because (although it is really bad) these guys are trying and you have to start somewhere.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed