Talk:Dinoshark

A fact from Dinoshark appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that despite being panned for exceptionally poor acting and special effects, the 2010 film Dinoshark was also considered likely to become a classic of the "awesomely awful" movie genre?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

Wikipedia

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Summary of reviews[edit]

Google search

Monstersandcritics.com drew a link between this and other older "fun films, laced with implausible plots, brilliant poster art and laughable dialogue demanded that you show up ready to suspend disbelief, prepare for a scare and always left the audience entertained" and that some aspects are "hilariously over the top. Think Al Pacino's Cuban accent in Scarface times ten", but concludes that in the context of its genre, "We wouldn't want it any other way."

heraldReview.com described it as an "awful movie" of the legendary kind which mandated watching.

Chicago Now gave it one star out of 5 as a "low-budget joker" and "cheesy, mindless fun" [1] stating there had to be a "fun drinking game" in it and the best thing about it was the title.

Dread Central was condemnatory of the "rubbery" monster, "exceptionally chintzy" effects and "some of the worst acting ever seen in a Syfy original movie", concluding that users who did not regularly watch "schlocky shark flicks" would probably enjoy laughing at "this silly offering in which half the cast sound like they were voiced over by George Lopez".

GenreOnline felt there were "a few too many stock establishing shots" which were repetitious, but the special effects are "actually pretty good", concluding the film should be approached "with a sense of humor".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinoshark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501131109/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/smallscreen/reviews/article_1538799.php/Review-Dinoshark-is-epic-Syfy-s-Roger-Corman-fish-tale-airs-Sat-March-13 to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/reviews/article_1538799.php/Review-Dinoshark-is-epic-Syfy-s-Roger-Corman-fish-tale-airs-Sat-March-13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]