Sand Sharks (2012) User Reviews

Yeah, this was, uhm, interesting...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 13 January 2012]

Oh dear Lord, this was horrible.

Well, actually I knew that right away from the title alone, but at the same time I wanted to see it because I knew it was going to be one of those campy movies that make you shake your head in disbelief, and trust me, it did.

The story itself is so amazingly ridiculous. Sharks swimming through sand. Come on. Who comes up with ideas like these?

And the cast, well even though some of them were actually putting on adequate performances, the movie was just weighed down by a poor plot and bad CGI effects.

There are lots of really bad shark movies available on the movie market, and "Sand Sharks" is right up there with them. It is utterly non-plausible and just down right stupid at times. "Sand Sharks" is worth a watch if you want something to laugh at while trying to recover from a bad hang over, and that is about it.

What's next, Concrete Alligators?

I enjoyed it even as it was cheesy and bad

[trashgang · 4/10 · 4 April 2012]

If you see Mark Atkins as the directors name and you see the title of a movie that looks stupid or looks like a rip-off of a popular title then you know you will get ultra trash.

This here is no exception. But it's so strange to see the name Gina Holden on the credits. Face it, she has done so much excellent horrors like Saw 7, The Butterfly Effect, AVP and I can go on and on. Others here in this cheesy flick deliver performances from stupid ones to wooden ones. But also the CGI used is one to see. It's on of those SyFy quality and you know what that means. As bad as it can get. But I must admit that I somehow enjoyed it because they added some comedy towards this flick. If you take it seriously then you will hate this flick but if you watch it as a stupid flick then you maybe will enjoy if you can dig ultra low budgets. And the production didn't take themselves seriously because in this flick they even mention Roger Corman, so a big hint to what you will get.

It's weird that this is even available in a cut version although it doesn't have that much red stuff in it, except some CGI one. But the uncut version does deliver one gory shot of a copper being bitten in half, intestines shown. Here and there their are a few other nasty shots. Where they also added some comedy is in the fact that a voluptuous girl is getting undressed and is ready to show her juggs is bitten by a sand shark, funny to see and a big finger to the perverted ones out there. So no nudity here.

Get yourself a pint and some crisps and invite a few friends, you surely will have a few laughs. Not as bad as I thought it would be but still, cheesy as hell. And I wont go into the really bad and predictable ending....

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 1/5

And the point of this movie was....?

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 9 April 2012]

Well I certainly don't know the answer to that, and judging by what was on display here I am not sure if the movie did either. Haphazardly edited with cheap special effects, Sand Sharks is a poorly-made film, that is further disadvantaged by a number of other things including a soundtrack that is overbearing and in danger of slowing down the film, a script that is filled with bad puns and unbearably cheesy dialogue, a ridiculous and predictable story not helped by the witless premise, characters that are stereotypical, cartoonish and annoying and acting that is generally over-played and forced. The sharks are not menacing at all and their attacks are not thrilling or suspenseful in the least, plus how they are used in this movie is what makes Sand Sharks so ridiculous in the first place. The only redeeming qualities for me were the idyllic opening shot and the likable enough performance of Brooke Hogan, who managed to be the sole redeeming quality of 2-Headed Shark Attack as well. The rest overall was pointless and too annoying and ridiculous to be entertained by. In all honesty reading the reviews here excusing Sand Sharks' badness was much more entertaining than the whole movie put together. 2/10 Bethany Cox

The most amazing thing about the film is I actually watched it all!

[onefrazile · 1/10 · 24 January 2012]

Seriously, this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Really poor B-movies from the '60s rank higher than this abomination.

I implore anyone reading this before seeing the film to instead, pop down to a DIY store, buy a can of paint. Find a wall in your home that needs some attention, paint said wall, pull up a chair and watch it dry. It's a much better use of an hour and a half! Some positive feedback on the film, there's a couple of stunning ladies cast, pity that their dialogue is written, presumably by an illiterate horse (sorry, I think that's a bit tough on horses).

The location setting is o.k. The script, plot, acting, concept, visual effects and directing though is woeful. One for the Razzies!

Not sure what it is I watched

[Hetnib · 26 June 2012]

No seriously, what did I watch???

I didn't know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity throughout the movie.

Sure the CGI isn't great, and the idea of sand sharks itself isn't exactly a genius' work, but that didn't really disturb me. I think the over and under the top acting was the worst part, additionally, whoever took part in writing the script should be shot. I've seen pornos or "romantic dramas" from 1995 with better scripts... (reference:"I like to play games").

I guess I would watch this movie again if friends came over and we would all get really really really high while watching the movie, then I would say it's an amazing comedy.

Hahahahahahahaha

[phantasmda · 1/10 · 11 May 2012]

Hahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha (choke!) (gag) (wheeze) hahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ((Stops for a moment to wipe a tear from his eye)) Hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha (gasp!) (chuckle) (gip!)

(((takes a few deep breaths to calm his hysterics)))

I've just finished watching this film and it's a hoot! There's really not much more I can say about this unbelievably awful film. The acting, the script (what there is of one) the props, the special (hahahaha) effects (they have to be seen to be believed, I honestly haven't laughed this much in years) everything is so bad it's hilarious. One line in the film is a parody from Jaws but instead of "smile you son of a bitch" so heroically belted out by the great Roy Scheider, this donk yells out "smile you SAND of a bitch" (No seriously, this really is in the film I ain't kidding) We're talking reaching the bottom of the barrel here, breaking through the bottom and digging down until you can't dig anymore and then pitching a pile of dynamite at the end just to go that few feet lower. This film is THAT bad. A 2.6 rating on here? Most of the votes pushing this up have got to be joke votes or the director and casts families, this deserves to be lower than a 1.0 for sure "One more time for the road...Hahahahahahahaha

Campy

[SanteeFats · 5/10 · 10 September 2012]

Unbelievable plot line, typical SyFy B-minus movie but I give it 5 stars because it is so ridiculous it is funny and the eye candy is pretty darn good. Jimmy Green is so stereotypical as a small time grifter that his character is pretty funny, but talk about over acting a role and where did he get napalm???? Of course he makes up for everything at the end. The old man who shows up and sets everything up for the final kills does emote a little too much but he definitely has the face and voice for the role. Of course the fact that he found out about the sand sharks 30 years ago and no one else knew is extremely unlikely. All in all not bad. They had to leave room for a possible sequel (I hope not) so the snaky gal gets eaten at the end to set that up.

Can the Scifi channel get any dumber?

[mhorg2018 · 1/10 · 18 July 2013]

Damn. I remember when the Scifi channel was a great channel. Battlestar Galactica. Caprica. Classic sf movies. Twilight zone (ok, they still show that). then NBC took over and the channel went down hill, linking up with those losers at The Asylum, where they should all be committed, and showing absolute garbage like this. This crap makes stuff by Shyamalan look good. I'm not even kidding here. Bad acting. Bad SFX, bad story. Bad everything. And then some idiot will say, "Oh it's a homage to the great B's of the past." Ha. These aren't even as good as the trailers of B's of the past. They should all go to Corman school and learn how to do things on a budget. I'm swearing off the formerly known as the scifi channel forever.

Same story as Jaws and Piranha

[ebiros2 · 4/10 · 2 September 2012]

I saw this movie without knowing when it was made. I was surprised to find here that it was made in 2012, because the movie has a look and feel of something made in the'80s.

An island that looks very much like the beaches of southern California has casualties of dirt bikers. They've been mauled by something, but the sheriffs are not sure what did it. An entrepreneur plans a big beach party for college kids. You know the rest of the story .....

The story is like a mix of Jaws and Piranha in that man eating shark is prowling the sea shore, and just coincidentally, large group of kids are going to have a festival there.

Asides from a story that's like "I've seen this before", the movie is pretty well made for something that's made on a low budget.

They should have came up with little more original story, and it might have been a lot more entertaining.

"Eat this you sand of a b....(SOB)"

[NateDoggies · 1/10 · 29 January 2012]

Yes, that line really is in the movie!

This has to be a contender for worst movie of the century! I honestly can't believe I sat through the whole thing. I think I just needed to see how bad it actually got, and I have one word: Atrocious!

I knew it wasn't going to be work of art after seeing the title, but it's almost as though they were attempting to torture the viewer as much as possible, and in such a cheesy way. The dialogue was pathetic, the plot was predictable and un-original, the acting was embarrassing, and the effects were like something you might see on a budget TV show.

I had to write this review; if it can save 2 hours of another person's life it will be worth it.

Just bad, not even as funny as Killer Tomatoes.

[deacon_blues-3 · 1/10 · 2 December 2012]

What can I say? Just a waste of time. Even 30 minutes of this is like an eternity! I hope nobody actually made any money off of this horrible excuse for a film production. It should not even be allowed as a tax write-off for a business loss. In fact, decency should compel society to make such films illegal. It's that bad!

Even Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was more entertaining; and made more sense! There is no humor, no acting, no nothing!

But Gina Holden is very nice to look at, I must say! But don't let that be any motivation for you to watch this travesty; she has appeared in other films, after all.

I laughed so hard

[Nutty_Goodness · 9/10 · 30 January 2012]

I honestly don't know why this got such a bad rap?

I'm not trying to be a "troll" or a dick but I honestly enjoyed it a lot. It came across as what it was meant too be, a movie that was ridiculous to the point where it was funny. A movie to poke fun at when it pokes fun at itself.

I liked that it wasn't hung up on gore (like Piranha(a pointless gorefest)) I'm assuming people took this as a serious horror movie and if so... Wow. It's called sand sharks, sharks that live in the sand (if you didn't already get that).

That aside, the acting suited the movie very much, the characters were great and how they got off that rock made me laugh till my stomach hurt.

It's my first review so please excuse punctuation and I really suggest this movie if you enjoy watching terrible movies to poke fun at.

right mindset = worth your time

[hopla68 · 7/10 · 6 February 2012]

Like others pointed out before me, complaining about goofy CGI or story lines in a movie called " Sand Sharks" is useless. The basic fact that these kind of movies have these treats for us makes them fun to watch and if you have problems with the fore-mentioned goofy parts this isn't the right type of movie for you.

I was planning to see this as a doubleheader with 2 headed shark attack, another gem which has roughly the same premise and one actress in common; however my gf objected. We saw 2 headed shark attack yesterday and while she was trying to sink away in the pillow on the couch she murmured that it was like watching a porn movie without the porn; acting and set wise. So I choose to save the Sand shark adventure for today, while I was alone..which was the good choice relation ship wise. Anyway, back to the movie at hand; Sand Sharks.

I am not going to tell you what the film is about, like all " monster name in title" movies its rather self explanatory. The makers did make the smart move to not show the beasties too much - however, lots of people get munched on- and what we did see was the usual clunky CGI, mostly fins and sharks popping out of the..mmh.. sand ( really, how anybody can resist that with " Tremors" or "Bloodbeach" in their nostalgia bag I don't know).

We have the usual town festival on the beach ( " thousands of kids"; more like 30 extra's) and we have the colorful figures that run around between the sand shark attacks. And those figures are colorful, we have a guy channeling a Johney Depp impersonation, we have the Robert Shaw derivative with even the exact same way of talking and last but not least..Brooke Hogan as a shark expert. And everyone is in on the joke, nobody takes themselves or the story really serious and the acting - for this kind of movie- is above par. And you need that in a movie like this were there isn't enough budget to do great action scenes or big set pieces.

And truth to be told, Brook isn't doing a bad job. I remember seeing asylum movies with 80's singers like Tiffany that were a hell of a lot worse. She doesn't have to make room for any Oscars in the near future but she does an okay job ( which she also did in " 2 headed shark attack"). I mean, don't get me wrong, nobody is going to believe that she is a shark expert even if her life depended on it but she delivers the lines and on this level movie wise her acting chops are more then enough.

So all in all a good viewing experience, just get into the right mindset, manage your perceptions and you will have a fun 90 mins.

This is a Comedy !

[Bobart · 5/10 · 3 March 2014]

When you have a story like that you have only two choices: You make a "serious" film and fail or you make a comedy out of it, which is the only way that works.

Director Mark Atkins and lead actor Corin Nemec (far away from his Parker Lewis fame) made a good choice and turned it into a comedy. Especially Nemecs over-the-top performance is really worth to watch. What else should they do. I mean, sharks who can swim in the sand (!)- sounds ridiculous but the comedy style saves the whole film.

The Special effects are typically for a SciFy movie but okay, yet they don't have the budget of Jaws or Piranha 3D which gives the film a special charm.

Did I mention that Brooke Hogan is in it? She's the eye-candy in here. Spoiler alert: this is not a Horror Movie, it's a Comedy, so don't take it serious !

Bad Enough for Some Laughs

[Michael_Elliott · 18 December 2012]

Sand Sharks (2012)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

JAWS meets TREMORS in this silly, straight-to-DVD creature feature that lacks any real bite. A small town discovers that there is a deadly shark swimming through the sand but they're able to destroy it before a bunch of college kids show up for a beach party. As you'd guess, it turns out that the shark was just a baby and soon its mother shows up. If you're looking for some sort of classic then it's best to stick with one of the films mentioned before. If you're looking for a really cheap, really silly movie then SAND SHARKS might just be for you. When you go into a movie like this quality isn't what you should be looking for but instead you can just hope for some "so bad it's good" moments and this film offers plenty of those. I must admit that there were several times where I found myself laughing extremely loud at what's going on in this thing. The first glimpses of the sharks swimming around in the sand were rather hilarious and there are other bits of comedy here that works. One such example is a scene where a woman gets bitten in two and the guy with her tries to save her life by attaching her guts together. The film certainly shouldn't be taken too serious as there are so many logical problems here. With that said, what really kills this movie is the fact that it clocks in at a way-too-long 90-minutes. Remember when movies like this clocked in less than 70-minutes? I guess the films of today must clock in at 90-minutes for television but it's really too bad because if you took out the boring personal drama crap then you'd be left with a fun monster movie. Believe it or not but the performances are actually above average for this type of thing and it appears that Brooke Hogan took some acting classes as her work here is much better than we saw in 2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK. I'm a little surprised that the producers didn't get into some trouble because there are several scenes that rip-off JAWS and the heads of the monsters also rip off the ones in TREMORS. This film here isn't nearly in the same league as those two classics but with dialogue like "We're stuck between a rock and a shark place," you can at least have a laugh.

One word only. Plagerism

[garycbelleville · 2/10 · 29 January 2012]

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work (as copied from Wikipedia) The filming, camera work ,lighting, music and even some of the acting is OK to quite good, but God O'mighty the idea, and even most of the scenes are exactly like Jaws. At least the beginning of it that is. I don't recall if there were any scenes in the film that were not actually predictable when it wasn't being copied from jaws. ah yes I do remember,there weren't any. I wouldn't say that this movie is a complete waste of time because some of the crews actually worked very hard on this and I wouldn't want to neglect their work nor efforts, however that being said I am definitely not talking about the writers, producers or director. They should know better. I am glad to have watched this at home and not at a theatre where I would have to pay a large amount for it.

Bad movie...there,i spoiled it.

[dadatuuexx · 2/10 · 13 January 2012]

I have seen some turds in my life,and this one is on that list.I,m sorry,but i,and other people sat thru this,because i feel for the poor actors,and artists that had to keep going,working on this movie.I will admit,not bragging,that i have worked a bit in film,and they were low-budget movie,s,but now seem like the Hilton,compared to what i saw.The acting was poor,the writing was bad,the fx were shoddy,on both levels,the story...the story??...come on, lame is lame.Sharks in the dirt?.If there were ever sci-fi movies TOO shoddy for the Sy-Fy channel,i just seen it.I gave the 2 rating because ,as i said before,i feel for the artist.I know that working on films such as this,can be a rancid experience.Long hours,bad food,shoddy craft service,low,to NO pay,and at the end of all of this ,you still know that you made a bad film.Oh well,i suppose i,ve seen worse.Not being much of a fan of C.G.I. movie,s don,t help much.i would loved to have seen more of them,other than a computer image of a monster sand shark.Wait...sand shark ? ..dirt shark...?...oh man,i just wasted an hour !.

Sand Sharks (2011)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 5/10 · 15 January 2012]

As a child, whenever I'd go to a beach I'd imagine sharks gliding effortlessly through the sand. I must have been 6 or 7 back then. Now, 20 years later, someone had the idea to turn that into a film. I love that this film exists even if I don't love the film itself. This has the exact same plot as Jaws, all the way down to the expert called in, the old hunter guy showing up at the town meeting, and the wrong shark being caught early on. The problem with the film is that it tries too hard to be funny. And when it tries it fails, or simply confuses. There are some nice touches, such as one of the characters giving "As my father always said..." speeches, but lapsing into bad impressions. It's when it shies away from something that could have been emotional, for a few needless gory gags. Casting Brooke Hogan as a doctor of marine biology is the first red flag this film gives off. The film trudges towards a climax involving a couple of dozen people trying to give off the impression of a huge party. Seeing the actors crowd around the camera to make it looked pack, or the same actor running back and forth, is mildly amusing. Bad CGI, bad jokes that you laugh at and not with, and exceptionally bad one liners "Your party is no longer on the sand, it's on the ice." It all adds up to what I was expecting, but it didn't have the budget to be the parody it seemed to be aiming for.

as Charles Barkley would Say --it's turrabull

[rhew1232-543-910272 · 1/10 · 29 January 2013]

I love ridiculous movies - funny movies - stupid movies . This movie is just terrible even if it was meant to be terrible . I found my kids watching it and even they said to me we need to turn this thing off. Do Not in any way turn this movie on for fear of brain damage. It may very well end up being a cult type film especially in Colorado and Washington State in the near future as they may be more apt to enjoy said film while treating their ailments. For them it will be a great way to enjoy the legalities afforded to them recently - The rest of America would be better served to "just say no" to this movie until the laws are changed in their respective states.

Peak of Nonsense

[bahadrkk · 2/10 · 28 August 2012]

Before I started to watch this movie I had been thinking that it would be exciting and breathtaking movie. But, such a fiasco! I just laughed, and I felt myself as if I was watching a comedy movie. Briefly, it became the worst movie I have ever seen. It can make no sense and no excitement. Just became a waste of time, just a funny horror comedy.

Carachters were incredibly unrealistic and the plot was a medium quality plot acting was not good or bad.Even, entering an ad or a comment is also waste of time, it doesn't worth anything.A film in that level can be made even by high school students with an ability of creating special effects, but nonetheless I liked the last scene when sharks were destroyed.

Cheese for cheese's sake

[grnhair2001 · 5/10 · 6 September 2016]

Almost as funny as this movie are the one-star reviews here where people took it seriously and were affronted that it's bad. Folks, it's supposed to be bad. It's pastiche. It's a comedy. It may not be a comedy at the level of Airplane or Tremors but it did make me laugh aloud a half-dozen times. And compared to how often I laugh at many Hollywood rom-coms, this thing wins, fins down.

The place I probably laughed the loudest is when the brainless MTV dance party kids are dancing, a coed about to strip off her bikini top gets eaten, and the drug dealer who enticed her to take off the top is splattered with blood. He throws his hands up and shrieks … and , obediently, all the brain-dead dance party teens throw their hands up and shriek/whoo as cued. It's so perfectly encapsulates the hive mind of such kids, who I've always loathed, and it was cultural critique, imo, and funny at two levels. C'mon, how is that not funny?

The puns are groan-worthy. The acting is broad on purpose. To drive home the point about it being a pastiche, Roger Corman is mentioned in the dialogue. I think it's far better than Sharknado.

Not horror, but comedy.

[minxehg · 5/10 · 12 April 2013]

As a horror, this film is rated 1/10...and I'm the biggest wimp ever, Hot Fuzz gave me nightmares (go figure). If you choose to view this film as a comedy however, it's great! Me and my friends sat through this laughing our heads off at the terrible CGI, (at one point I'm sure somebody was wiggling a cardboard triangle along the bottom of the screen), and the cheesy lines said with such a serious manner are quite frankly hysterical. "She's thinking....out of the sandbox! >8O" Deary me. It's entertaining at least, major weakness though is the inability to feel any connection to any of the characters, they're all very stereotypical characters, the clever one, the courageous police, the nob-head, etc. Overall, it's funnier when watching in a group, good option for a chill-out movie night with mates!

Its a B-Movie people....

[unklejoker · 8/10 · 4 November 2012]

What really gets to me is how some people like to say how bad these movies are.... THEY ARE MADE THAT WAY.... I would watch this any day of the week over garbage remakes that Hollywood dumps 200 million into and tanks. Its too bad people think that they need to grade this in a comparison to a top of the line film. This film is MEANT to come out like it did. It doesn't have some crappy sellout actor that keeps showing up in all the Hollywood overpriced films. Try judging the movies on how they were meant to come out. When people see its a SyFy movie, they realize its gonna be corny, have bad acting and storyline/one liners that make the movie worth watching. Shockingly, Brook Hogan wasn't that bad in this movie.

Amazingly stupid fun! I loved it!

[djalexblanco · 7/10 · 31 January 2012]

Anybody who watches something so obviously meant to be ridiculous and then complains because it is ridiculous is probably the same kind of moron who lies in the sun and then complains that it is hot. As such, I suggest you ignore the negative reviews on this page. They probably wrote them on the way home from seeing The Who in concert after leaving early and complaining that "it was just too loud in there".

There are two types of terrible movie. The first is best represented by Terror Inside. Badly acted, poorly written and generally excruciating to watch. Almost universally such movies take themselves too seriously (ANY hint of seriousness is too serious).

The second type includes such knowingly comic gems as Flight Of The Living Dead. A ridiculous name which diligently ticks all the boxes, as does the film. We're talking boxes such as a consciously silly script, a good cast of weird and/or attractive stereotypes and the collective tongue jammed so deep in cheek that it resembles a particularly greedy squirrel.

Whenever you are in doubt, the rule of thumb is that the more outlandish the name, the more likely it is to be brilliantly terrible.

But rules are made to be broken. Sand Sharks nearly passed me by, as it is quite a sensible and vague title. Then I saw the 2.7 rating and realised it might well be more preposterous and unashamed than the title suggested. Thank goodness I did.

This is a hilarious, over the top, over-acted and actually quite skilfully constructed comic b-movie-esque homage to Jaws, with a hint of Deep Blue Sea.

One Bad Hat - of a movie - Harry

[PartialMovieViewer · 1/10 · 27 July 2014]

WOW…this movie had everything. It had acting…which was bad; it had a script…which was also bad, and the directing…ditto on that being bad too. I will say it did have women in it pretending to act with really nice cleavages. Their boobs moved when they spoke, now that is an example of one class act. I don't know what any of them said, but I doubt it was really that important. Meh – these are markings of a really good movie – right? Well I was thinking about giving this movie ten stars, and then I saw the beginning. Fortunately for me, I recorded this monstrosity and watched it with the FFW button meshed from start to end. Even then – it sucked. I may have missed most of the dialog, but I got the idea. This movie is worthy of only negative numbers, but IMDb does not provide that option. If you must see this movie, ask yourself why? I have to ask – why is this kind of stuff pumped out? I mean the big-named flicks are bad enough when they try to be good…but why are movies peddled that are intentionally bad?