Spring Break Shark Attack: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:07, 27 July 2022

Revision as of 22:09, 27 July 2022

Line 50:

==Critical response==

''[[The Washington Post]]'' offered that ''Spring Break Shark Attack'' was "a thrillertrue dream title" for something viewers might expect to watch on late night [[Cinemax]] or on [[USA Network]] in [[prime time]], or find in a list of [[direct-to-video]] losers. They also offered that even with the ridiculous title, the film's "scary parts really are intensescary, enough so that little kids should be sent to their rooms."<ref name="Washington Post"/> Visual effects were approved, in that when a partly damagedchewed victim washes up on the beach, it actually looked like a partially eaten shark victim, rather than something sanitized for television. They felt the film "works on its own frankly silly, fitfully gripping level" if one has "two hours to kill and a harmless lust for artificial blood."<ref name="Washington Post">{{cite news|last1=Tom Shales |title=Cue the Shark Music and Prepare to Be Scared|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48632-2005Mar18.html?nav=rss_style/columns/shalestom|accessdate=16 February 2015|work=[[Washington Post]]|date=19 March 2005|author1-link=Tom Shales}}</ref>

''[[DVD Talk]]'' spoke toward the film being a drama about teens who look older than they're supposed to who have "to deal with their relationships and romantic encounters and all the melodrama that accompanies that type of material" and described it as "basically ''[[Beverly Hills 90210]]'' with sharks."<ref name="DVD Talk"/> They felt the film had an issue with the sharks themselves being used at first so infrequently that the final 20 minutes of the film become makes "up for lost time by throwing in sharks by the hundreds."<ref name="DVD Talk"/> While the anticipated underwater photography is limited, there "are a couple of decent shark/kill scenes and a corpse or two that washes up on the beach, but nothing interesting enough to really stand out or make the film more any more enjoyable."<ref name="DVD Talk"/> The film's cinematography is decent and the film looks nice, and while no performance is particularly bad, no one stands out either. The film thus becomes the "very embodiment of mediocrity, resulting in boredom – the biggest mistakesin a directormovie can commit."<ref name="DVD Talk"/> The film's very few appreciated moments do not act to advertisesave the film.<ref name="DVD Talk">{{cite news|last1=Jane|first1=Ian|title=DVD review: Spring Break Shark Attack|url=http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/20395/spring-break-shark-attack/|accessdate=15 February 2015|publisher=[[DVD Talk]]|date=27 February 2006}}</ref>

''[[Dread Central]]'' found the film to be "two hours of mildly laughable, suspense-free entertainment,"<ref name="Dread Central"/> where CBS's attempt to create a nature gone amok genre failed in its purpose.<ref name="Dread Central">{{cite news|last1=Condit|first1=Jon|title=Spring Break Shark Attack (2005)|url=http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/3655/spring-break-shark-attack-2005/|accessdate=15 February 2015|publisher=[[Dread Central]]|date=22 March 2006}}</ref>