A 'mockumentary' about David Moore, the filmmaker who first dreamed of "sharks in a tornado" and brought on disaster by using real sharks. The first SHARKNADO was to be a movie never seen, ... See full summary »
Survivors escape to a deserted atoll, after their boat during a Semester at Sea ship is sunk by a mutated two-headed shark. But when the atoll starts flooding, no one is safe from the double jaws of the monster.
As shark-infested storms grow stronger and more complex, the world braces for the inevitable - a global sharknado. This year, the mission gets personal for chainsaw-wielding leader Fin Shepard and his bionic wife, April, when their young son gets trapped in a sharknado and is transported all over the world.Written by
(at around 3 mins) In the beginning of the movie, Fin rappels down below Stonehenge, stopping in a prone position just above the ground, and says, "Mission accomplished. Eat your heart out, Cruise." This is a reference to the scene in the Mission: Impossible (1996) movie where Tom Cruise's character ends up prone, hovering dangerously close to the temperature sensitive floor in a secret vault. See more »
(at around 15 mins) The double-decker bus they drive in London is not a British one. It has the entrance on the right side for right hand driving traffic. See more »
A couple of the opening credits (including the title) are shown with the same font as the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) credits. The rest of the credits don't appear until the 21-minute mark, through the franchise's regular title sequence. See more »
The first two 'Sharknado' movies were not great and had a lot wrong with them, but they were guilty pleasure fun as long as not taken seriously. 'Sharknado 3' however was a let-down, it lacks the fun and charm of the first two as a result of being too self-aware and trying far too hard, really wanted to not take this seriously and view it as a guilty pleasure but it was just too amateurish and tired. A notion that was present and multiplied in 'Sharknado 4' that indicated the novelty was wearing off.
A feeling that can also be seen in 'Sharknado 5'. There is still a little more fun here and overall it is the best of the 'Sharknado' franchise since the second film. And it is not because it is set in my home country, it's mainly because there's a little more fun and freshness and parts are slightly more inspired. There is still a sense though that the franchise has gone too far and that the novelty value that was there in the first two films has worn off. Even when one tries to take it for what it's trying to be (it is clear that it is not to be taken seriously), it generally just falls flat.
Ian Ziering is likable and charismatic in the lead role, he plays it straight but still looks like he's having fun with the role. There is some nice scenery and an energetic and eerie music score.
Some of the references, while obvious, are fun and create a sense of nostalgia. Likewise with a few of the cameos.
Very little else works. Tara Reid continues to be unspeakably awful, her facial expressions look so expressionless and very forced in the few times she tries, her line delivery is mechanical and she constantly looks ill at ease. Other references are not as clever as they think and induce a groan in how they are written and there was a sense that the cameos were too many, with a lot of them being too short, pointless and screaming of "what the heck" in bizarre roles to take on.
Even for low-budget, 'Sharknado 5' is very shoddy stuff. The scenery is pretty good but the film is shot in a very rushed-looking and drab way, editing is sloppy as well as choppy and the shark special effects are typical dreadfully artificial Asylum/SyFy fare (if not as bad as the third and fourth). Regarding the shark attacks and death scenes (none being good enough to even reach "reasonably fun" level), that the sharks have little personality let alone menace (the plastic surgery on display is scarier than them) hurts them and even more so the unintentional silliness comes at the expense of thrills and suspense, which are nowhere in sight, and gets tiresome. The film is directed flatly, the energy and enthusiasm in the pacing is missing and there are too many cardboard characters that are difficult to give a toss about. The first two films had some great funny lines, but the script here contains little remotely amusing or memorable and instead feels stale and tiresomely cheesy, especially one of the most insultingly nonsensical endings in recent memory.
Like with the story, which is thin, aimless in some scenes and far too more of the same with very little freshness to make that forgivable. It's further not helped by trying too hard being dopey fun and in the process taking itself too seriously at times that any life is sucked out intended to have some originality but are just cheap and ridiculous.
Overall, better than the previous two sequels but not much impresses here. 4/10 Bethany Cox
0 of 0 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this