Well, I have to be honest and start out by saying that I harbored absolutely no expectations to this 2023 movie titled "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge", as I have indeed watched the previous two movies. Yet, I still opted to watch it, on account of it being a shark movie that I hadn't already seen.
Now, the storyline in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge", as written by Bando Glutz, was actually pretty straightforward and not all-together too shabby. Sure, it was generic, predictable and somewhat dumb, but it could have been worse.
But it is hard to point out all the flaws that there is to "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge", because there were so many flaws in the movie. So many, in fact, that it keeps the movie afloat, because everything is so over-the-top hilariously bad to witness.
The acting performances in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" were wooden and rigid at best. I have to say that the performance put on by Jamie Morgan, in the role of Boyd, was some of the worst acting performances I have witnessed in a long, long time. But it seemed to be a consensus in the movie that the acting performances had to be amateurish, wooden and forced.
The special effects in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" were bad, so very, very bad. The CGI animated shark was just awful to look at. And the practical effect shark was nothing more than a hand-puppet shark and blatantly so, as it looked nowhere near a realistic shark in any way.
The best thing about "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" was actually the movie's cover/poster.
It should be noted that "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" also does a crossover, as it brings in the shark from the 2016 "Sharkenstein" movie into the storyline.
If you enjoy low budget B movies with questionable effects and amateurish acting performances, then by all means "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" from director Mark Polonia might be your type of movie.
My rating of "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" lands on a one out of ten stars.
Now, the storyline in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge", as written by Bando Glutz, was actually pretty straightforward and not all-together too shabby. Sure, it was generic, predictable and somewhat dumb, but it could have been worse.
But it is hard to point out all the flaws that there is to "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge", because there were so many flaws in the movie. So many, in fact, that it keeps the movie afloat, because everything is so over-the-top hilariously bad to witness.
The acting performances in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" were wooden and rigid at best. I have to say that the performance put on by Jamie Morgan, in the role of Boyd, was some of the worst acting performances I have witnessed in a long, long time. But it seemed to be a consensus in the movie that the acting performances had to be amateurish, wooden and forced.
The special effects in "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" were bad, so very, very bad. The CGI animated shark was just awful to look at. And the practical effect shark was nothing more than a hand-puppet shark and blatantly so, as it looked nowhere near a realistic shark in any way.
The best thing about "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" was actually the movie's cover/poster.
It should be noted that "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" also does a crossover, as it brings in the shark from the 2016 "Sharkenstein" movie into the storyline.
If you enjoy low budget B movies with questionable effects and amateurish acting performances, then by all means "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" from director Mark Polonia might be your type of movie.
My rating of "Jurassic Shark 3: Seavenge" lands on a one out of ten stars.