<em>'The Meg'</em> almost succeeds in being a fun action blockbuster, though for me it comfortably falls short of doing so. To put it bluntly, I simply got bored whilst watching it. I like the cast, but that's about it in terms of positives. The effects and story just didn't do it for yours truly. <em>'Jaws'</em> (obviously) and even <em>'Piranha'</em> did it better, this one doesn't have anythver mais...

This is one of these international co-productions that has way too many producers and vested interests behind it, so it's no great surprise that what we do end up with is such an hybrid of so many other films, It's actually quite hard to be objective when writing about it. The obvious comparisons are with "Jaws" (1975) and "Deep Blue Sea" (1999) but this is a distinctly poor relation. Even on an Iver mais...

It's nice to see a Shark-led Creature Feature that's actually got some money behind it, but _The Meg_ is still really nothing special. _Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Child friendly horror... You have to take in to context the post release statements by director Jon Turteltaub and lead actor Jason Statham. The Meg is not the film they either read on the page or filmed as a course of grisly schlock entertainment. This was meant to be a proper schlocker, a bloodletting monster of the deep on the loose picture, sadly the suits at the helm didn't see that as a vver mais...

Well, when the credits started to roll I cannot say that I felt it had been a waste of time and money. I did indeed have some enjoyment watching this movie. However, it could have been a lot better. For starters, what is the point of making a movie about a bloody “dinosaur shark” and aim for a PG-13 rating? Whoever made that incredibly stupid decision obviously missed the mark big time. I thinkver mais...