I first heard about a film with such an interesting title many years ago, when it was advertised on TV. Surprisingly, it seemed to me then that Akulosaurus is a very dark, frightening and high-quality film, in the spirit of "Primitive Evil" or at least "Predatory Waters". Having learned that in fact it is rather an analogue of Dinocrock, along with which Akulosaurus is often recommended, I sighed deeply and very sadly. Well, yeah, it's really a movie from the same category.
About sharks and crocodiles shot a lot of second-rate thrillers , falling under the category of thrash. Sometimes among such films there is something good, like "Octopus Shark", but most often on TV and on video carriers such "Akulosaurus" come out. The sea monster, which according to the rules of the genre turns out to be a prehistoric species thawed in the ice of the Arctic, looks good. It is a pity that the characters and creators of the film have not decided whether it is a shark or some giant Dacosaurus. The shell, in any case, is not typical for sharks, but the Dacosaurus did not possess it either. Being close relatives of not dinosaurs, but crocodiles, Dacosaurus lived in the seas of our planet from the Late Jurassic to the Early Cretaceous Perio, from 155 to about 112 million years ago. This coincides with the interval indicated by the characters of the film, so, based on some similarity, I assume that the creators of our dinoacular (as the original animal is called) had in mind some member of the metriorhinchid family. At the same time, I very much doubt that the authors have given such serious thought to their film. Most likely, they wanted to shoot something between "Jaws" and the same "Dinocrock".
More than once or twice you will remember this classic, because the music in “Akulosaurus” is very similar to that in the mentioned film. There is even a reference to the famous phrase about the boat, but instead of the boat we are talking about the helicopter. Speaking of the fact that our Dacosaurus looks good, I mean only the computer model itself, since it is very poorly inscribed in the surrounding world. If you watch the film in high quality, then the unsuccessful combination of graphics and nature is always striking. For some close-ups used a rubber layout, but it also looks so. Most likely, yellowish teeth are made of soft rubber, which is not able to hurt anyone.
But what about the plot? Events take place in Mexico, and the main advantage of "Aculosaurus" are, perhaps, luxurious views of the sea and yachts. Sometimes beautiful girls in bikinis flash in the frame, but then the film already sags, because 90% of the time you will "enjoy" the boring dialogues of the main characters and look at the close-ups of their faces: this is some yacht owner, some researcher of marine fauna, a Mexican seller from a bar ... oh, believe me, you do not want to delve into who of them does what. Why I think Akulosaurus is worse than Akulo Octopus is because the last one shows us the monster very often. He looks bad there, but at least appears often and very juicy devours seductive beauties. And in "Akulosaurus" our monster not only appears rarely, so also flashes so quickly that it can be well seen only in a couple of scenes.
However, one detail you may be interested in: in the background here appears Roger Corman. Do you know who Roger Corman is? He’s the king of B movies! I won’t list his entire filmography here, but I will note that Corman plays better than the actors in the lead roles.
But the film is finished by the fact that it was shot on some lousy cameras, so the shots are cloudy and slightly darkened. If "Octopus Shark" you will watch without taking off the screen, then "Akulosaurus" you will get bored already in about the seventh minute and you will definitely not be able to resist rewinding. In the film, where the absurd is important, murder and some humor are important, we are pleased with only a few moments, among which I can highlight, perhaps, the attack of the Dacosaurus on the modern alligator. And that is only because of the poverty with which it is shown.
Closing: “Akulosaurus” is bad not only compared to films of category A, but also among the “beshek” it also “does not shine with quality”. If you want to watch a treshak about very ancient and very hungry reptiles, turn it on. Dinosaur hunting" or crossover "Dinocrock vs. Dinosaur". These are not masterpieces, but at least they can be laughed at. And "Akulosaurus" - the sight is too dull.
I’ve watched all the shark movies I can, so all I have left is to see the Akulosaurus movie.
The plot revolves around the fact that an ancient shark awakens in Alaska and, naturally, where does it swim? To a resort with a bunch of vacationers. And what should the main character do? Right, stop it.
From the point of view of the plot, the film is not worth attention at all. The plot is simpler and more straightforward to come up with. You know in advance what will happen on the screen, because there are dozens, if not hundreds of such films, and much better in quality.
By the way, yes, the film itself is low budget, so if you look at the quality of shooting, graphics, then there are also no positive aspects. The shark looks unrealistic. I understand that the idea of making a film about an ancient giant shark is a fantastic idea, but it is very important what this monster looks like. A good example of this is Godzilla vs. Kong. There, the monsters are well executed, although Godzilla does not exist, but she looks realistic, and then Godzilla does not exist. I don't know. It looks, to put it mildly, not very good.
The film also uses good old tricks from the movie "Jaws", such as, for example, noting the presence of a shark by sound, etc. But this will not surprise anyone, neither in 2010 (when the Akulosaurus was released), nor even more so in 2022. There are more favorite films about sharks.
The cast also leaves much to be desired, the actors are little known, so they do not show any miracles of acting. Their emotions look flat and playful, you do not worry about the characters of the film.
For me personally, there is not 1 positive moment in this film. I think there is no point in wasting your precious time watching this movie.
3 out of 10
It is funny now to remember how a fan of such films in the old days, when he did not understand special effects and dialogue, was a fan of one rather dangerous for the nerves of the genre of cinema and evaluated films of this genre only in terms of frightening effects, while not distinguishing expensive graphics from cheap. And this is something else - in those days I was not such an experienced user of the Internet, as now, and I did not dream of film search and reviews, and did not even know about such a site, and I watched movies on TV like the most complete loser. When I finally began to learn how to “crawl the Web”, on my favorite website I ordered films that I watched mainly on TV3 channel (and where else can you find so many horror films about predators?), and what was my anger when I began to read negative comments on my favorite creations. Began to angrily defend them, rudely respond to every comment... Although I loved movies of this type wildly, I didn’t watch them, unlike those who loved Resident Evil and The Curse, which noted as much more serious and high-quality horror. It is possible that in my subconscious I knew that all sorts of "Akulosaurus", "Crocodile" and similar films - cheap, but refused to admit it. When I had more than a thousand movies of different genres and trends, and I turned from a rude commentator into an experienced reviewer who understands cinema for real, I suddenly decided to review several films that in 2010 I considered chic. One of them was “Akulosaurus”, shot, like most similar films, for TV, so I knew in advance that I would have to be disappointed in the once sympathetic film.
Of course, it’s clear that it’s not a movie fountain. They make it for people like I was six years ago. The idea is banal: an ancient plesiosaur awakens in the glaciers of the Arctic and goes on a journey, devouring everyone in its path and increasing in size. Perhaps, with a larger budget, a film with such an idea could be both more interesting and more spectacular, as, for example, "Rise from the Deep" about the attack of a giant octopus on marines. But there are TV films that differ in more original ideas, and more interesting dialogues, and even more high-quality special effects, which is incredible for a television production: the most striking example is Dinocrock vs. Dinosaur, which I also revised, and almost did not disappoint, noting that there are not very high-quality camera work. There are no beautiful landscapes (except for the first and last scenes), no abundance of spectacular fights with the monster, and dialogues in places are terribly banal, even in soap series and even better. I want to show the authors "Jaws" Steven Spielberg and say "this is how they were shot without using computer graphics". Looks, of course, more interesting than such a creation as "Crocodile" 2000, in which even more saved on effects, and the plot was even more trivial; well, certainly much better than such a hellish wretchedness as "Tentacles", which is impossible to watch without a hundred-storey mat. The dinosaur shark itself was painted, by the way, not as lousy as the monsters in the two above-mentioned “cobs”, but I would like more scenes with a full display of the monster’s body and more high-quality scenes with his attack on people, but is it possible with a small budget? It turns out that it remains to watch only theatrical films on such topics, but there are quite a few of them, and television sometimes turn out to be a perfect bottom. Although, if you like such paintings, as I liked at the age of 18, you can look. But don't expect anything special.
Kevin O’Neill was even more or less “edible” in his debut work “The Last Predator of the Jurassic Period”, the same representative of low-quality thrash about mutated monsters from the past. But then this man lost his mind and lowered his hands. It is not surprising that after the most terrible, even terrifying "Akulosaurus" he made films, the names of which are already muddy. And the tape about the plesiosaur geek, meanwhile, remains strikingly malfunctioning in all articles: there is absolutely nothing interesting in it.
The delusional plot boils down to only one scheme: there is a monster, there are victims, the monster eats literally everyone and everything (not only people, but also crocodiles, and boats, and ships), people try to get out of the water, someone gives them a hand, but the trashery at the last moment grabs the unfortunate drowning man - and so for the film ten times, according to the same charter. There are no funny moments from their stupidity, no mocking pleasure on the faces of useless actors and extras. The director seemed to say to them: “Now imagine that something big, toothy, dangerous and screaming is floating behind them!”, and then filmed everything from one take.
I don’t even want to stutter about computer graphics and logic (although I will have to). To achieve this unnaturalness is a special talent called “I can spoil even the bad.” From the first to the last movement, everything gives off playfulness and carelessness, but other moments are thrown into bewilderment when you sit and think how this is possible even in this shameful thrash. For example, a scene in which a boy throws pebbles into water, in which a plesiosaur shark eats an alligator. The bottom line is that the pebbles, the alligator and the monster are almost the same size. This makes the second and third look like toys. Bravo.
This film can only say what the main character said in the finale of the sharkosaur: "Welcome to the list of extinct species!" I think that such a “cinema” will not like even ardent fans of thrash, so it is even more likely not talentless, but simply do not care about its viewer.
1 out of 10