Now, our visitor suggested Jurassic Park. While not her words exactly, but she suggested that the film was made with as little talent as the makers could get away with, but not without some enthusiasm.
The same evening, after she left, we watched the film, and afterward I was faced with a serious conundrum: rating the film. On one side, the film is undeniable awful. Awful dialogue, delivered by awful actors, shot at some quarry lake and long abandoned hangar, with zero production values (unless you consider young women in bikinis as value).
Take the poster, which undoubtedly presents the most professional part of the production. There are no helicopters in the film, no explosion on a boat, no explosions to be seen (only heard), and the shark is way smaller (and way less realistic).
So, in the end, as films go, this one deserves by all standards only one point (actually zero, but most sites don't allow that, so it gets one point as a participation trophy, for the simple fact that it exists). But then I had so much fun with this inaptitude, the sincerity with which everyone was playing their parts - abetted by the fact that without the titles (both opening and end titles) the whole took only about 55 minutes, that I cannot help it but to give it two points on the Internet Movie Database.
As for the story, there is not much to tell. A drilling company inadvertently releases a shark that was frozen underground for millions of years to a lake. At the same time, a group of students and a gang of art thieves drop by and get caught up, first with the shark, then with one another.
The real surprise came later, when I found out that most people involved with the film kept working in the film industry and kept finding work.
