Yeah... not good. I don't dislike <em>'Jaws 3-D'</em> as much as most evidently do, though. Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong are actually pleasant in terms of the cast, none of those behind them are anything worth noting but are somewhat serviceable. I will say I didn't enjoy the plot, but only because it lacked something worth watching - it's poor, not terrible. More of the shark was wanted, but I would personally say that about the preceding two films as well. Parts of this 1983 flick that are terrible, though, are the special effects, especially right at the end. There is also some poorly done green screen and it, clearly, has a dire cover. There's no doubting this being made was a cash grab, that's basically the only reason to ever go 3-D, but a cash grab doesn't necessarily mean it's an awful film; which this isn't, in my opinion. It's simply bad. The cover is hilariously awful though, granted.

Any fans of the original "Jaws" (1975), hell even of the sequel (1978) need not bother with this completely unrecognisable nonsense. Believe it or not, there is still one "Brody" - "Mike" (Dennis Quaid) who wants anything to do with the sea. His previous, death defying experiences haven't put him off! Anyway, he works at a newly opened sea world where a baby great white finds it's way in for a quick snack through a broken seagate. Where's mama, though? She can't be far away! The baby shark is captured, but swiftly dies and it is as if the big one knows, and let's just say she is seriously narked. Aside from some decent underwater photography, and some talented folks doing water-batics, it's a dreadful stain on the reputation of the franchise. The opening titles offer a clue to the 3-D effects, and I do recall sitting in the Odeon in Glasgow with my cardboard glasses on wondering what all the fuss was about 40 years ago. Now I know - it was all just a badly constructed, poorly acted gimmick that is as forgettable as it is terrible.