VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

SimonJack When Hollywood decides to make a sequel, it doesn't try to lose money in the deal. Yet, many times the moguls are wrong and sequels don't fare well at the box office. Once in a while they have a big hit. More times than either of these, the sequels will fare well, or good enough at the box office, even though they may be far inferior films. And sometimes, a sequel will be terrible and still do well with audiences. That's okay with the movers and shakers in tinsel town because making money is mostly what making movies is all about. "Jaws 3-D" is in that category of quite bad sequels that nevertheless did quite well at the box office. It may not be too surprising, considering the subject matter and the enduring aura from the original film, just eight years earlier. And, to some extent, considering some intrigue and enjoyment from "Jaws 2" in 1978. Maybe the 3-D angle was the biggest push for making a second sequel. But this film fails in all aspects except a couple of scenes with the shark. If that were the only reason for watching this film, and the rest of the script could be trashed, it might score a 5. But the acting by everyone in this cast is horrible. It ranges from the melodramatic to the infantile to the forced and amateurish. The script is terrible. The idea for the plot is okay, but the screenplay just doesn't build an aura of suspense and worry about where the beast will strike or appear. Enough said. This is a very forgettable film. As bad as this one is for intrigue, characters and acting, Hollywood yet did one more - looking at the box office from this one. But "Jaws 4" in 1987 did not recover its budget in the U.S. and just earned a little worldwide. That probably put an end to the efforts to try to capitalize on a singular fantastic fright movie from 1973. Many of us who enjoyed the original scary thriller are happy that Hollywood finally has had its fill of great white sharks. How about a giant octopus movie? It's been a few decades since the sci-fi folks at Hollywood made one of those.Here's the only humorous line in the movie. Mike Brody (Dennis Quaid) says to Dr. Kay Morgan (Bess Armstrong), "All right. I'll have my beeper beep your beeper."

jay_amer Now, I am a Jaws fan but this movie was okay i suppose. Couple things that threw me off a bit, I will still watch it again since i love jaws and i watch all 4 movies from time to time. 6/10!!! Decent performances! Shark was bigger but some CGI parts were weird.

Bryce Durham I actually find this plot to be very unique. Neither of the other two JAWS sequels are so distinguishable. They take place in open water and the shark destroys some boats. This one is in a whole different environment... Sea World. People are saying this plot is ridiculous except it's really not because having a live great white shark in captivity is every aquarium's dream. Sure the shark bashes through steel mechanized gates but is that really such a far leap from pulling apart an entire pier or pulling down those yellow barrels like the shark did in the first movie? Unfortunately everything positive I could say about this movie stops there.While the look of the mechanical shark improves with each sequel this one did a terrible job at showing it properly. Also there's a scene where the baby great white is attacking a sunken ship to try getting to some people but it's clearly a guy ramming a toy shark into a miniature ship prop. The baby also hardly ever moves its tail for some reason so it looks like its just drifting in the water. The effects have their moments but they're mostly cheesy and laughable.The acting is uninspired and none of the characters are really memorable. There were times where I was like "oh yeah... THAT guy exists..."Every time I saw the shark fin rise to the surface and heard that iconic music playing it felt like the director was just saying "Oh! I get to make a JAWS movie! That means we need lots of these shots!" There was no tension to those shots like there was in JAWS and even a little in JAWS 2.It's bad but I've seen worse. The only reason I gave it a 4/10 instead of a 2/10 is because I didn't take the film very seriously so I got some good laughs out of it.

Solnichka McPherson When compared to the original or even the first sequel, this movie is bad. But as a stand-alone slasher movie of the time period, it's pretty fun to watch. Sure, you're laughing at it more than with it, but that's okay: Isn't that what dumb horror movies are for? It's cool to see Dennis Quaid and Lea Thompson as younger versions of themselves, and the 3D effects are not bad (if you see the movie in its intended 3D presentation) for the time period, either. What did people expect? Shakespeare with a shark? Come on ... If Sharknado stuff is so popular, this movie can't be considered that bad. People just rip it because it's not the original. What sequel is?