Dinoshark (TV Movie 2010) Poster

(2010 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
37 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
It was too boring.
Matt_Layden22 April 2011
A dinoshark comes out of hibernation from being frozen for millions of years, to dine on some human flesh.

I picked this one up for some cheesy, it's so bad it's fun, lets have a good time, type of film. I'm so disappointed to say that Dinoshark failed on so many levels to entertain me, to make me laugh at the horribleness of it all or even keep my attention. I have to recommend Sharktopus over this one.

Eric Balfour continues to appear in horrible films, I don't understand why. I would hope that he assumed that he could amass some cult fans out there, but this film is too much of a mess for even those people looking for bad entertainment. I had a decent time seeing Roger Corman on the screen though, he knows how to act in a film like this.

The kills are BORING. It's the same thing over and over and over again. Dinoshark swims up to someone, crappy shot of it eating someone, then fill the screen with red to disorient the viewer from the fact that we have no budget to showcase a decent death. Sharktopus was more creative. Dinoshark feels like Megashark and Sharktopus, minus all the awesomeness and fun. The creature design is decent, from what I could see of it. The only cool images this film had were of the over the head shots of the water. Seeing the shadow of it swim underwater was neat. The rest is garbage.

The continuity errors were enough to make me laugh, glasses on face in one scene, completely gone the next. Not to mention that one character has a BEARD in one scene, then nothing for the rest of the movie. It literally pops up out of nowhere. I could appreciate the lame continuity issues, had the film been more aware of this. Instead, it feels oblivious to it all.

The giant shark is able to swim in the shallowest water ever. Literally two feet away from the land, it pops up to eat a croc. What? Insert Jaws theme rip-off and lame death scenes and you have yourself a terrible film. I guess I was expecting a cheesy fun factor here, but instead I got a horribly boring effort that hopes to capitalize on the title of the film more than anything else.

Dinoshark is a miss.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another Cheesy SyFy Production
gavin694218 May 2011
After a piece of ice thaws near Alaska, the prehistoric dinoshark makes its way to Puerto Vallarta in Mexico to harass the tourists. And, of course, eat them.

The cover on this film is a bit misleading. What you see is a shark with the head of a T-Rex. In the actual film, though, what you get is basically just a shark (albeit one with a rocky, tough skin). And the graphics are just as bad as any other SyFy film.

If this film has anything going for it, that would be Roger Corman as Dr. Frank Reeves. Not that he is a good actor, but it is nice to see a legend like Corman showing his face -- especially since he is the producer of this trash. Lead actor Eric Balfour is just average. I could praise him for past work (the "Texas Chain Saw" reboot), but he was poorly cast here. Playing a Mexican local, he has no Latino blood in him and speaks with a Boston accent (despite being from LA).

Does this film have a global warming message? Hard to say. Clearly the dinoshark arrives because the ice caps are melting, but the film never explicitly states why. Could be man, maybe just an earthquake shook it loose. Either way, the real problem is that a shark survives being frozen for millions of years, not the global climate issue.

Although I thought "Sharktopus" was way over-hyped and poorly made, I have to say it is better than "Dinoshark". This film really has nothing going for it, unless you want to listen to the audio commentary and hear Corman try (and fail) to defend it.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Better than most of Syfy's output, but not saying much
TheLittleSongbird16 May 2011
I have made no secret about disliking a vast majority of Syfy's output, I find a lot of cheesy effects, terrible acting and forced dialogue complete with the odd bit of novelty value if in the right mood. Dinoshark is not among the worst of their efforts, as the creature is surprisingly adequate in design and the opening sequence sets the film up quite nicely. Plus the locations are quite nice, shame though about the choppy editing. However, apart from the creature the effects are really quite cheesy, the gore especially does look very fake. The film also has a predictable story, which I was expecting actually though on paper it had a somewhat daft but intriguing idea, but it is also a sluggishly paced story complete with scenes that are either useless, scenes that feel more a spoof movie than anything else with a scene reminiscent of one from Megashark vs. Giant Octopus, or completely devoid of suspense. The dialogue is forced and contrived, I agree 100% about the "food made with love" line, which in my mind is one of the most groan-worthy lines ever on film celluloid. The direction is flimsy, and the acting doesn't fare much better especially the lead actress who can't act even if her life depends on it, yes even from Roger Corman, not helped by the fact that none of the characters are compelling, likable or written well. The attack scenes are also badly staged with no build-ups whatsoever, and the music score is little more than a badly done rehash of the likes of Jaws. Overall, it is a terrible movie, but I'll be kind in that Syfy have done much worse. 2/10 Bethany Cox
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Dinoshark comes out of extinction to dine on tourists
MartianOctocretr520 March 2010
The title promises some good kitschy schlock fun, and the film delivers it. A prehistoric beast that once roamed primeval waters is back, and very hungry. It visits Puerto Vallarta to hunt and feast on anything that moves.

The creature is designed pretty well, and it's quite an acrobat. It lunges out of water to chomp on copters and para-sailors. It hangs ten to grab surfers, and jumps over road blocks set up by the local policia. Why it's here is not really explained, but it may have to do with not eating for 65 million years or so; this thing has one dino-appetite. Nobody is safe, and Sharky devours a few people you wouldn't expect. Walk-on characters fare worst of all; appearing just long enough to encounter you-know-who.

A tour-boat guy, a girl scientist who works a menial job, and a big-dino-fish expert are the only ones that bother to do anything about the monster. By the way, the white-coated expert on prehistoric sharks is played by none other than B-movie wizard Roger Corman himself, in a rare turn in front of the camera. And he does a good job in the role, too.

Good action, combined with some cheesy effects, makes for a good ride as our heroes try to stop the ancient creature's hunger rampage. This one is pretty fun to watch.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
DinoCrap would be a more suitable title... and probably more entertaining
kiawa7715 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As usual, this SyFy time-waster opens with poor CGI effects. You can't appreciate the quality of "lame" unless you see it (which I don't recommend). This is soon followed by a terrible fake death scene.

And, as usual, we move onto a festive party scene, setting the stage for a terrible monster to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting happy-go-lucky resort town.

All throughout the movie, the dialogue is contrived and forced. Other than our man Trace (you may recognize him as "Milo" from 24), these actors deliver their lines very, very badly. And those lines are written very, very poorly. For instance, we have our little team gathered in a bar, huddled around a small table.

"Anybody want another drink?" the bartender asks... when the bottle is clearly sitting right there in the center of the table. As if they couldn't reach in 10 inches to fetch it for themselves. Stupid.

Oh, and whenever DinoShark is around, you hear the ominous rip-off of the JAWS theme. If this is supposed to be a tribute film, someone should be sued.

Rita getting into the water all alone with tritones playing in the background. Hello completely useless snippet of movie. Oh wait, that's supposed to establish the fact that the shark is a killer? Oh wait, that's supposed to lure search and rescue to the scene of the bloody water? But of course! DinoShark (who can roar mind you... those dino vocal cords) wanted another meal.

And don't forget those sensitive moments: "It's the first time I tasted food made with love." - Trace. That's a line? Seriously? Somebody wrote that... and then someone else actually approved it? Good grief.

Another useless scene with the chick from Aspen and the dude trying to get it on with her. Oh, and the excellent touch with the fake blood splattering on the lens. Wow. How artistic. Apparently it's been established that DinoShark has a taste for human blood. Although, I'm not too sure... maybe I require a refresher. Maybe DinoShark will kill again, and then (only then) will I be sure. The suspense they mount in this movie is to die for (pun intended, ha ha).

I did not have to wait long. After the impounding of Trace's boat, we do indeed have another useless scene to prove DinoShark's fiery bloodlust. As if we don't even know it's coming.

Now how to kill it? The guy will try to get some explosives from his "friends at the army base". Okay. That happens all the time.

If a shark can eat a whole boat, don't you think it can plow through a chain link fence? And we've already seen it flop out of the water; obviously it can jump. But a tiny fence with a barely floating bridge over it will surely stop DinoShark! Oh, and it eats crocodiles too. Another useless snippet of film. Thank you.

"Fantastic day of fun at the marina" = DinoShark attack.

Things you'd never say when discovering a severed head floating near a kayak: "Well, at least they got their wildlife adventure." Who wrote this rubbish? So eventually they catch up with DinoShark after it eats the parasailor (like nobody saw that coming), and Trace tosses a grenade at its eye orbit despite the fact that he could've thrown it right down the shark's throat. That would've exploded the shark from the inside and surely caused it death, but what do I know? And the fake black blood is a lovely touch.

As we all know, 'tis only a flesh wound, and DinoShark attacks again! "Welcome to the endangered species list..." our sweet science teacher says. But technically, since there's only one, it already qualifies for the endangered species list. She is now, effectively rendering it on the 'extinct list'. But who am I to nit-pick? Overall, this movie is HORRIBLE. It is completely predictable, boring, full of flat actors delivering poorly written lines and filled with choppy scenes that don't make much sense. If you have any kind of intellect, this movie is not for you. It's dull in every regard, not even so-bad-it's-good. It's not cheesy, drole, or fun in any way. You find yourself wondering why you're even watching it. I only did so I could write this review. This is a terrible flick, and it now ranks up there with my top 10 worst movies ever. It's a complete waste of time; save yourself.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Much better than I expected.
kavenga2 December 2009
I just saw it at the 6th Annual Puerto Vallarta Film Festival. I went basically because I live in PV and a few friends were possibly going to appear as extras. Given that it was a low-budget made-for-TV movie I was prepared to be disappointed. Instead I was entertained. It's a bit of an homage to "Jaws" in both the shark scenes and the musical score. Even with the bar set that high it still managed to achieve some of the same types of shocked reactions from the audience, while at other times they laughed. I'm not a connoisseur of B-movies but those that are should really get a kick out this film. And it was great to see producer Roger Corman in a cameo role as the marine biologist expert. I had the honor of shaking his hand as we left the theater. The cast was well anchored by Eric Balfour in the lead role. Perhaps this role will lead to bigger and better things for him. And finally it was nice to see a film in a theater, for a change, that had no foul language or gratuitous nudity. Taken in the context of its budget and its intended distribution, this is a pretty darn nice little movie.
22 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
More Sy-Fy Channel creature feature crap, why do I keep watching this stuff?
poolandrews15 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Dinoshark starts in Alaska where a huge chunk of ice falls into the Ocean, frozen deep within the 150 million year old ice is a small prehistoric shark that promptly thaws out & swims away. Jump forward 'Three Years Later' & the prehistoric dinosaur shark is now fully grown & has made it's way to the warmer waters of Puerta Vallarta where the holiday season is in full swing. With plenty of tourists for the shark to feed on it's not long before all sorts of body parts are being washed up on local beaches, after one of their friends is eaten boat Captain Trace McGraw (Eric Balfour) & marine biologist Carol Brubaker (Iva Hasperger) decide to team up together to hunt down & kill the monster shark...

Directed by Kevin O'Neill who also made the crappy creature feature Dinocroc (2004) one has to say that Dinoshark is yet another awful Sy-Fy Channel creature feature of no real worth whatsoever, why I keep watching these things baffles me, it really does. Personally I am getting sick of these awful creature feature films that play out exactly the same, that have terrible stories that all seem to unfold in the same way with some creature or other killing various people then a few brave souls decide to take the beast on & kill it. Yawn. Dinoshark feels like a rip-off of Jaws (1975) as you might expect, the shark monster, the holiday resort, the tourist season, the greedy businessman, various people being attacked from beneath the water & even the music is often a rip-off of the Jaws theme. Maybe I have had my fill of these awful creature features but I found Dinoshark to be even more lame than usual with terrible CGI, badly staged attack scenes, the majority of the film looking like a tourism video with pointless shots of local dancers, wide shots of the locations & the like that just slow the film down & make it even more tedious. The character's are all awful, the plot is none existent & could have been written on the back of a postage stamp with room to spare & I sort of switched off about thirty minutes in when it all became a bit of a blur, I sort of lost track of who people were & what they were trying to do not because Dinoshark is complicated but because I was just so bored that my eyes glazed over & I went into autopilot watching what was happening but not really taking it in. Terrible. Awful. Rubbish. Crap. Take your pick, I really don't have anything positive to say about this total waste of time.

The CGI computer effects are terrible, I mean they are really bad with shots of the Dinoshark leaping out of the Ocean coming across as funny, the attack scenes are some of the worse around with poorly edited shots of people splashing around on the surface & the awful CGI Dinoshark attacking from beneath. There's a few gory moments like a woman bitten in half lying on a beach, a decapitated head & some blood splatter but nothing overly excessive. There's no build-up to the attack scenes, there's no tension or attempt at suspense either, everything that made Jaws the classic it is is totally absent from the awful Dinoshark. This is just rank rubbish, even at 85 minutes long Dinoshark feels like it lasts for two days & is incredibly boring & predictable.

The IMDb says that Dinoshark had a budget of about $2,000,000 which sounds like complete bull to me, how can a film with a fairly decent budget be as rank awful in every way as this? Filmed in Mexico the locations are nice enough I suppose but it does tend to look like a holiday program at times more interested in showing of the sunny settings than anything else. The acting is awful, leading lady Iva Harsperger in particular is terrible. Producer Roger Corman turns up in a small role as a scientist.

Dinoshark is a really awful Sy-Fy Channel creature feature, it's bottom of the barrel stuff from start to finish. Maybe I have just had my fill of them but I found Dinoshark to be even more predictable, tedious & crappy than usual. Definitely one to avoid. Even if it's on television for free go & do something fun instead, like the ironing.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
New Release: Dinoshark (2010)
horrormoviejournal14 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
To watch a SyFy Original Movie and expect anything more than garbage is like...well, watching a SyFy Original Movie and expecting anything more than garbage. I apologize for my lack of a witty pun, but you have to understand: I just finished watching "Dinoshark", a movie about...you guessed it, a prehistoric shark. My brain is still turned off and probably won't come out of hiding for another couple of hours. You see, the people over at the SyFy Channel haven't made a quality movie in years, if ever, and yet people always tune in to see what they have to offer. I can sympathize; after all, I'm one of them. In fact, I have to admit that I was more than a little excited to see "Dinoshark". Let's face it, there is just something very appealing about watching Eric Balfour go head-to-fin with an unfrozen dinosaur shark. Plus, with a title as gloriously cheesy as this one, you know about what to expect: a lot of hokey visual effects, some hilarious dialog, and plenty of over-the-top creature violence. That, my friends, is just how the SyFy Channel makes movies. What's most surprising (and probably unfortunate) is that their formula actually kinda works. I mean, sure, "Dinoshark" sucks, but all of its horribleness is simply too obvious to be unintentional. Even if you hate it, you're sure to enjoy it on some level.

Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boring, boring, boring
mbrooks-822 April 2011
Global warming causes ice shelf to calve releasing prehistoric beasty into the modern world. So right off the bat SyFy Channel doesn't want to be accused of originality so they use a pretty overused monster trope, and then they decided that they don't want to accused of being entertaining either so they gave us a film that is 90 minutes of sheer boredom as the dinoshark swims and kills with not an ounce of self awareness or winking at the camera that a film of this genre kind of relies on to be successful. When your a TV movie and can't have actual gore or gratuitous nudity you have to make up for it with a fun and clever script, this film didn't even bother with a script at all. Eric Balfour (Skyline) has got to be the most boring of leads imaginable, and he heads a cast of mostly overdubbed Mexican actors. Pathetic.

Eric Balfour's character describes seeing this horned creature attacking about, later the lead girl looks up stuff on the "internet" and finds artists renderings of a horned prehistoric shark. Strangely the dinoshark that we get in this movie does not have the horns described by Balfour or like the one in the drawings. I guess the CGI team didn't bother reading the non-existent script either.

Roger Corman should be ashamed to have his named attached to a piece of dung like this. It's not even bad/fun, it's simply boring/bad.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
who approved and budgeted for this!
gianniz-41-13533929 April 2011
worst movie eva! do not watch it no matter what! not funny, not scary, retarded acting, i want my 2 hours back! dinoshark stinks, dinoshark is a crime to humanity, dinoshark is straight to bin. repeat! worst movie eva! do not watch it no matter what! not funny, not scary, retarded acting, i want my 2 hours back! dinoshark stinks, dinoshark is a crime to humanity, dinoshark is straight to bin. repeat! worst movie eva! do not watch it no matter what! not funny, not scary, retarded acting, i want my 2 hours back! dinoshark stinks, dinoshark is a crime to humanity, dinoshark is straight to bin. repeat! worst movie eva! do not watch it no matter what! not funny, not scary, retarded acting, i want my 2 hours back! dinoshark stinks, dinoshark is a crime to humanity, dinoshark is straight to bin.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Shark Jumps Roger Corman
wes-connors7 September 2013
In an arctic region, melting glaciers cause the release of an ancient baby "Dinoshark". Three years later, the now monstrously adult beast turns up off the Alaskan coastline. It eats a diver and, apparently, develops a taste for human flesh. Migrating southward brings "Dinoshark" to tourist-rich Puerto Vallarta, Mexico which has a good food supply. Handsome young "Fin Seeker" tour boat captain Eric Balfour (as Trace McGraw) is the one who first realizes the danger and tries to stop the carnage. "Dinoshark" could disrupt the community's annual fiesta...

You would expect legendary low-budget producer Roger Corman to excel in Syfy Channel shark movies, but the expert fails to make the most of this assignment. "Dinoshark" is sloppy and substandard, even for the genre and TV movie outlet. As if to rub salt in the wound, Mr. Corman contributes a lackluster acting role (as Frank Reeves). The Corman fun is missing. Likable in the lead, Mr. Balfour is left holding the water. His attractive co-stars are led by beautiful blonde Princeton graduate and water polo captain Iva Hasperger (as Carol Brubaker).

*** Dinoshark (3/13/10) Kevin O'Neill ~ Eric Balfour, Iva Hasperger, Aaron Diaz, Roger Corman
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the better Sci-Fi movies.
hvwalton20 March 2010
I enjoyed this movie very much. It had some very well executed and exciting sequences that kept me on the edge of my seat. The direction and acting were well done and I could believe and care about the main characters. There were a huge amount of visual effects and animation shots in this movie which were done for very little money and time. This work was very well done, especially taking this into consideration. The locations were great choices and the excellent cinematography enhanced this cinematic experience. Some of the creature shots were awesome in how it was integrated with the live action scenes. I am looking forward to viewing this movie again.
9 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
One of the better low budget creature flicks.
michaelRokeefe14 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Is it an homage to the JAWS movie franchise or famed small budget master producer Roger Corman, who actually is one the producers for this Syfy Network feature. Some very good scenes featuring the computer-generated "Dinoshark", the prehistoric creature that no one believes exists. Well there is one true believer and eye witness...a tour boat captain(Eric Balfour), that takes it upon himself to stop the giant killer that is terrorizing a lush Mexican vacation spot. A very visceral bloodbath and enough tension to make you squirm. This one is actually fun to watch. Also in the cast are: Liv Boughn, Humberto Busto, Aaron Luis, Iva Hasperger, Christina Nicole and a even a small role for Mr. Corman himself.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A somewhat better SyFy movie for a change...
paul_haakonsen9 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"Dinoshark" being a SyFy movie ought to say it all; another wonderful movie with a monstrous creature, fantastic effects to make you laugh, and a plot that would sink faster than a rock.

Sure enough, "Dinoshark" is another of SyFy's distinct trademark killer monster movies. But luckily, it is one of their better ones. Now, there are far better movies available, but as for SyFy movies goes, then "Dinoshark" is definitely a movie worth watching.

The effects in the movie were decent enough, though at times painstakingly fake to look at. The design of the dinoshark was actually pretty good. I liked it, despite the fact that it had a tongue for some reason.

And speaking of the dinoshark, a direct explosion to the side of the creature from a hand grenade did nothing more than injure it, but a thrown harpoon to the eye killed it? Yeah, alright, let's just say that is possible.

For a SyFy movie, then the acting is as to be expected, good without being on the level of award-winning. Oddly enough, the performance Eric Balfour (playing Trace McGraw) did in this movie was better than his performance in "Skyline", which was of a whole other budget range. Tch tch...

I was thoroughly entertained throughout the movie, and as always with these types of movies, there is a small handful of main characters and a whole bunch of insignificant ones that are just there to be eaten by the over-sized creature. But hey, that is what we have come to expect from these movies.

Now, is it just me, but was the ending the exact same scenes as the beginning? And if they were, then what was up with that? That would make it the lamest ending in SyFy history.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
You're gonna need a bigger chopper, cabron.
Hey_Sweden15 January 2018
After an iceberg breaks off a glacier in the Arctic, a pliosaur, or "Dinoshark", is freed from its imprisonment inside of the block of ice. Three years later, it has made its way to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where all the activities and festivities are interrupted by the monsters' feeding frenzy. The two characters destined to be the heroes are Trace McGraw (Eric Balfour) and Carol Brubaker (Iva Hasperger), and they will predictably encounter resistance from local dummies on their way to finding the beast and figuring out how to stop it.

After a while, a lot of those modern creature features that go heavy on the digital effects DO tend to blend together, and "Dinoshark" doesn't do anything to stand out from the pack, preferring to stick to a formula. If you're a die hard devotee of monster movies, like this viewer, you may not find it completely worthless, but you'll still likely wish you'd watched something else. The story (co-written by Frances Doel, a longtime associate of producer Roger Corman) is quite routine, and the effects are simply laughable most of the time - not that we expect anything different. The design of the monster is reasonably cool, though. Much of the entertainment value comes from the bungled "thrills" when the monster pops up violently to munch on a cast member.

As per usual for this type of thing, the cast is not particularly interesting, for the most part, although the young people are certainly attractive. Sexy Hasperger has a bit more to work with than hunky Balfour, because she's a capable heroine: reasonably intelligent and tough as well as eye candy, plus, she is somewhat well-rounded, working as a scientist with a sideline as a water polo coach! The movie may be most notable for using Corman (who produced this with his wife Julie) in an extended acting role, as a marine life expert. A master thespian he is NOT, but at least he doesn't embarrass himself.

One good thing about these deliberately cheesy made for TV creature features made by Corman the past decade: if nothing else, they make good travelogues. The setting is simply gorgeous. If only that damned monster didn't turn up to ruin everything...

Five out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Dino-disappointment
metalrage66610 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with these movies is that they continue to be made without any kind of reasonable budget and any kind of direction.

Dinoshark is a lot of things but a shark it certainly isn't. For starters, it's a Pliosaur, which means marine reptile and therefore more closely related to crocodiles. So this is either a Pliosaurus or a Kronosaurus. These creatures did jump to capture land prey as evidenced by fossils and actually fed on sharks and other marine life, so the big problem for me with many of these movies is why do they all suddenly go after humans? Even if this creature were frozen in ice as a baby for 150 million years (at least they got the timing right), and somehow global warming has caused said creature to wake up from its unusually long hibernation, why would it suddenly feel the need to continually feast on a species it knows nothing about? Just like Sharktopus, the setting is Mexico but unlike Sharktopus, the special effects were at least done a little better in Dinoshark and looked slightly more plausible. The overhead shots where you see the Pliosaur just below the surface swimming around it's prey is pretty cool, but the scenes that have it jumping up into boats are quite lame. I also don't get why it felt the need to bring down a helicopter. In what way would a 150 million year old predator even know that a helicopter was even edible? Most likely even at it's immense size, the noise and the down-draft would simply have driven it off.

Another thing with these movies is that they all seem to follow a central plot. Authorities never, ever listen until it's too late. Even when they realise that people are being killed and naturally think it's a tiger shark, they never close beaches, they never do proper searches. In reality, even at the merest hint of a shark patrolling waters off popular beaches, those beaches are closed until further notice. So while we can all agree that the premise of the movie is too far fetched to be taken seriously, I'd still wish to see some kind of logic behind what people tend to do in these situations, regardless of whether they agree it's a prehistoric creature or not.

The death scenes in this are another thing that bugged me. Not only did the hottest girl in the whole movie, die in the first 5 minutes, the death scenes were all pretty bad, and by bad I mean terrible. Lots of blood in the water clouded most of the action. This Pliosaur is ripping apart bodies as it would do, yet it leaves arms and legs floating in the water and on a couple of occasions a whole half-body? I don't think so. Even more ridiculous is when the lead "actor", Eric Balfour, and a couple of his friends go to try and find another friend who was recently killed along with the girl he was with, good ol' Dinoshark returns to the scene to eat his hat!! Yes you read that right, it goes back, to eat his hat. It doesn't bother to jump out of the water this time to eat the girl standing on the wharf, it just swallows the hat and swims away. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Just once I'd like to see a movie like this that actually had some kind of logical progression and some measure of decent direction. A lack of budget shouldn't be the reason to let go of sheer common sense.

In short this movie isn't funny at all, it's just dumb. It may not be as dumb as Sharktopus, but then that's hardly a yardstick to measure anything against. Dinoshark tries in vain to be intelligent but just comes off as haphazard. This is one for the dumpster.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Yuckie
SanteeFats28 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Okay supposedly there is a young 150 million year shark that has been frozen in polar ice. The piece breaks off, do to global warming I guess. Now three years later after maturing in cold waters it moves south to warmer waters. Of course it creates havoc, killing several people. There is the stereotypical Mexican cop with an over inflated ego who doesn't believe until he sees it kill a couple of his men. Iva Hasperger is a girl's water polo team but some how manages to have a major role. She does look very good in a halter top and shorts. More people die as the shark moves toward the ocean. This brings up a question, why can this prehistoric shark survive so well in fresh water? I know these movies are sensationalistic in nature but why do the predators seemingly have an insatiable appetite? Why don't they ever get satiated, at least for a time? Anyway the heroes use grenades and a spear gun (?) to kill it. Thank goodness the movie is over, what a piece of garbage.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why does Sy Fy keep subjecting us to this?
Freebirda9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why I ever expect anything out of, or even let myself watch, anything that is a "sy fy channel original movie", or why anyone would even admit to LIKING this garbage. It kind of makes sense that Roger Corman would allow his name to be attached to this, but this is low.....even for him. This movie doesn't have a single redeeming factor,at least not that I can see. The acting talent of all those involved is non existent, to say the least, and even they look embarrassed to be there. The dialog is so bad its cringe worthy, and.....the least said about the actual dino shark, the better. A five year old could create a better cgi creature, and actually make it look real. And the gore? What gore? Its just a horribly cgi rendered red cloud. It is beyond me how someone could actually enjoy this movie. Don't even waste your time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Well, it's a SyFy original...
deckaio16 September 2010
A Movie about a 150million year old "Shark" that has been frozen in ice. Naturally, as in every monster-feature B-movie, once it's free, it starts killing people, in this case at the Mexican coast.

The Monster design itself it pretty decent, although thanks to the short and quick shoots, you barely can see anything.

The Acting is bad, the dialog is bad, as is the general plot... but well, nothing I wouldn't expect with a title like "Dinoshark". The score on the other side is somewhat acceptable, especially when the shark "sneaks" up (strong similarity to the Jaws score 'The Shark Approaches'...what a surprise...) All in all, if you like "bad" Movies/monster feature, you could enjoy it, but don't except a good Movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not a Bad Typical SyFy Monster Flick
superal196615 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
*Contains Spoilers*

As with all SyFy films the laws of logic, even for Hollywood, have to be thrown out of the window otherwise you'll spend every 30 seconds pointing out things that could 'never' happen. Dinoshark wasn't that bad a film; time and time I read reviews of SyFy movies and perhaps people don't realise what they are about watch or are holding Academy Award winning films as a yard stick when reviewing these titles, but there are worse movies out there (many Hollywood films I can think of).

The opening sequence really sets the scene for this film with a beautifully captured Ice sheet collapsing followed by what could just be recognized as a prehistoric shark swimming towards the camera. Dinoshark has at times feels like it's a holiday program but all too quickly we are back to cheesy acting and pretty awful CG. That said, it doesn't make for an entirely unenjoyable experience.

The plot doesn't really need too much explaining. A prehistoric shark is freed when a glacier collapses and heads towards a crowded holiday resort, although it did take a strange detour via Alaska which begs the question as to whether the directors realised where Antarctica, Mexico and Alaska are in relation to each other.

Dinoshark carries on his way killing everybody that comes into it's path, human or crocodile it's not fussy. Dinoshark has no saving graces for children either, not content with adults being eaten, Dinoshark feasts on a kids game of Water Polo, and only at this point, over an hour into the film, do the public suddenly become concerned that the waters aren't safe. It honestly doesn't need explanation though as within 15 minutes you can guess exactly who was going to die when and who would be left alive at the end.

The continuity errors in this film were in abundance and none more so than Dinoshark seemingly shrinking or growing to fit the scene. The very same shark can swim within feet of the the coast or a river bank can also leap into the air and pull down a helicopter with it.

In many places it even had the feeling of a spoof movie - the music, "you are going to need a bigger helicopter" (Jaws) and the helicopter being taken out of the air (Megashark Vs Giant Octopus) to name a couple.

Iva Hasperger and Eric Balfour go about their acting well enough to make the characters likable and fun although somehow the film managed to keep away from the romantic cliché, which was a little bit of a shame. The film was a little slow in parts and I had the growing feeling that I wanted the film to move towards a climax rather than one death after another. The show down between Trace and Dinoshark was a little disappointing with the perfectly timed grenade and harpoon in his eye, although he'd done enough damage throughout the film as it was so he can be let off for being a bit of a wimp.

One final point that is worth noting, it was obvious that Dinoshark wasn't the only one about but to completely reuse the opening scene again at the very end. Really??
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Tropical Prehistoric Jaws
bkoganbing26 June 2015
The only thing to recommend Dinoshark are those tropical resort locations as most of this film is photographed in Puerto Vallarta. When you come down to it Dinoshark is an inferior tropical version of Jaws.

When I was a lad in the 50s it was radiation nine out of ten times that was the cause of these grotesque monsters. In the 21st century it's global warming as a piece of ice breaks off the polar ice cap which the egg of this prehistoric armored shark falls out and hatches. Two years later the little guy grows into a big monster and he's headed south for better feeding.

Scientists Eric Balfour and Iva Hasperger are concerned, but she wants to capture it for study. Balfour and their mutual friend Aaron Diaz say kill it and study the remains. Isn't that the way.

The armor plating similar to what was on the Ankylosaurus dinosaur makes this guy impervious to normal weaponry. That armor also makes him look like he has a rash.

I suppose shooting a movie at a resort has its compensations even if it's one as laughable as Dinoshark.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hilariously Bad but SO god dam Funny
tmanson17 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film along with Sharktopus made my year. Its so delightfully stupid that it deserves its own Acadamy Award "Best So-Bad-Its-Good Film".

The film is a about a prehistoric monster which kind off looks like a sea reptile from the dinosaur age but its a shark obviously. The CG effects are excellent by SyFy standards and the movie does have some entertaining moments. Yes the characters are boring and 1 dimensional but have you ever seen a B movie were the characters are interesting. Roger Corman likes to make movies that nobody else would make. People often forget that these movies were everywhere during the 70s and 80s most of them were god awful (Cruel Jaws, Grizzly, Octopus etc" but others were delightfully cheesy (The Last Shark, Monster Shark, Alligator, Pirhana 2 The Spawning, Carnosaur etc) these SyFy films are a tribute to these. Just like how puppets were used badly CGI is used horrifically in these movies.

Yes most of the SyFy exclusives are crap (Vipers, Sea Snakes, Snakes on a Train, 100 Million BC Etc) but there are a few that make me wet myself every time i see them (DinoCroc, Sharktopus, Malibu Shark Attack, Mega Pirhana etc) You have to be in the right mood to watch this film. If you want to see a masterpiece like JAWS or Jurassic Park your not going to get it, but if you just want to escape from reality and release the inner moron within you then watch DinoShark 10/10

Idea:Sharktopus vs Dinoshark vs Dinocroc vs Pirhanaconda
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Prehistoric Entertainment
abominablebro14 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is another monster hybrid movie by our lovable friend Roger Corman. Here we have the fabled Dinoshark, released from some ice as a tadpole which grows into a healthy adult dinosaur in Mexico. If there is one thing I hate about monster movies it's the random 2-minute characters that are introduce just to be killed by the monster, which this film has. However I was pleasantly surprised by the CGI Dinoshark, which was almost completely believable. I also enjoyed the idea of there being only one possible way of killing the Dinoshark which in this case was to destroy its orbital cavities. In no way is this film a masterpiece, but it's not so horrible that you can't watch it all the way through. I'll probably watch it again just for the heck of it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
At Least We Get Corman
Michael_Elliott8 June 2011
Dinoshark (2010)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

When a big ice chunk in the Arctic breaks free, it lets loose a prehistoric shark, which swims down to Mexico where it begins to eat anyone who gets in its way. A couple people (Eric Balfour, Iva Hasperger) decide to try and track it down and kill it after their friend is killed by the beast but a local scientist (Roger Corman) thinks this thing might not be able to be stopped. DINOSHARK is yet another made-for-TV creature flick that manages to be quite boring even though there's non-stop action and plenty of red stuff to go around. If you've seen one of these movies then you pretty much know what to expect as we're always given some far-fetched story that really doesn't make too much sense and of course there's the bad CGI monster that looks so fake that you can't help but not connect to the movie. These type of "B" movies have been around for decades but it's pretty amazing that so many of the current ones fail so badly. I think some of the makers of these films need to go back and watch some of the earlier ones and realize that you should just try to have some cheap fun. The characters in this film are so unlikeable that you really don't care about them and this here just hurts the film even more. Even worse is that the story is so silly that it's hard to care about what's going on and things don't get any better after the opening minutes. The CGI creature looks incredibly bad but this here is to be expected. The gore effects are also mostly CGI and one really wonders if the budget couldn't have been raised a few bucks to where they could have at least bought some fake blood to squirt around instead of having to use CGI. Both Balfour and Hasperger are decent in their parts but neither are given much to work with. What keeps this film moving is Corman who actually gets a pretty good role here. He appears in a good chunk of the picture and while he's not the greatest actor in the world he's at least watchable and it's good to see him in front of the camera again.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not the worst, but still......
okpilak7 March 2023
Visually, the movie is pleasant to watch, and one may not feel it was a total waste of time. But the movie was all too predictable. With a few clues, anyone could have sketched out the script. One knew well in advance who the next victim would be. A cheesy B-movie, but they didn't even try to throw in some twists or turns. For the most part, the CGI dinoshark was well done, except for the killings. Some of the acting was almost competent, but some of the real young children seemed totally ignorant of their roles. It seemed like they were tying too hard to root the movie into plausible science.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed