Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Listen with Prime Learn more Shop Men's Shop Women's
Customer Review

36 of 39 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Good Film with Very Good 3D - Blu-ray, 26 May 2013
This review is from: Bait (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray) (Blu-ray)
I am so glad I can read other people's reviews but not be swayed by them. This film was getting a universal panning, and after seeing I do actually understand why - but totally disagree! This sort of film is never going to win over the critics, or win awards. It's a 'creature feature', and should be treated as such. Also, every time a shark film comes out someone decides that comparing it to Jaws is the only way to get their point across. Please, people, stop doing that! Jaws was lightning in a bottle. It's never going to happen again.
Also, please re-watch Jaws before saying it's special effects were better than films like BAIT. They weren't. Bruce was a plastic shark who kept sinking and looked like a rubber bath-toy at the end. What Spielberg did so effectively was craft a suspenseful film out of the problems he was having.
Now BAIT is never going to be thought of as highly, but it IS a very entertaining film with some great set pieces and some pretty decent effects. The actors fit nicely into their, predominantly cliché, roles and all perform adequately. The director even manages to create some decent suspense.
Deep Blue Sea is the only 'recent' shark film I can think of that was a success (albeit with a totally barmy plot!). I watched Shark Night and enjoyed it. I've also sat through the abysmal 'Mega Shark vs...." and 'Sharktopus' films.
Go into BAIT with an open mind and wanting to be entertained for 90 minutes and you're sure to have a good time. Go in expecting a high-budget blockbuster with amazing special effects and you will be disappointed. Not every film has to be an Oscar winner or another Jaws, Rocky or Lord of the Rings. Film is meant to be enjoyed - maybe people should try that, instead of perfecting their armchair critic skills.
Just a thought.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Jul 2013 16:22:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Aug 2014 17:55:35 BDT
I don't think you disagree across the board at all. This shouldn't be treated as a "creature feature" but as a horror film, that title is just the subgenre it's in and critics base their reviews on elitism, snobbery, fashion and nothing else. Any amount of trashy, stupid slashers and worse-mythologically incorrect and inexplicably nonsensical cannibal flicks nicknamed "zombie" movies and fake exorcisms and abso bratters have "bash me" written all over them yet never get what they deserve! Why would anyone always insist on high aspersions. This film is worth more than times any amonut of Oscar heralded, blockbuster guff and critic-proof guff I've ever seen. This director has already made one of the best slashers ever 9the little-seen 'Cut') and now he's embarrassed the US with one of the best shark films ever. Go Kimble. Maybe he can concentrate on killer koalas next, it'd be different.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Aug 2014 13:59:28 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Aug 2014 18:12:17 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2014 17:54:02 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 27 Aug 2014 06:17:59 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2014 22:52:36 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Aug 2014 18:13:22 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2015 23:49:39 BDT
I don't agree. It seems that most reviews on Amazon are in defence of this film, and people seem to enjoy it on the whole. But while it is obviously meant to tongue in cheek, and I agree that it is not as bad as many other low budget horror titles, it fails for trying way too hard in terms of the quite literally 'in your face' fish-out-of-water cgi shark. And i'm not knocking only the standard of the effects - they are obviously low budget - that is not my problem. My problem with this film is that if you do not have a budget to make something that is supposed to be real actually 'look real' using cgi, then less is always more. This film has elements in it that were purely designed for the 3D experience, and for the most part they ruin it.

It's not all bad though. BAIT has a distinct Aussie charm to it, and compared to some of the other shark genre titles mentioned above it probably should be viewed as 'watchable' in a very small leaky paddling pool of bad films (perhaps bar the real sharks of Open Water); but it could have been so much better if the script had just held back from that early reveal. Of course it has nothing on Jaws, and probably for that very reason... not seeing a shark (bar its dorsal fin) for the best part of an hour makes up for a vaguely shabby plastic 'Bruce' flinging himself on the ORCA at the end.

But rather than people pointing at Jaws and pulling BAIT apart, this film would probably be better compared to the two Australian killer-croc films of recent years (which also probably owe a lot to Jaws!), 'Black Water' and 'Rogue'. Both of those films were made on a fairly small budget, and both also involve a group of people trapped in a confined area at the mercy of a giant beast - but the difference is that they know their limitations from the outset and work them to their advantage by using three similar concepts: Fear of the unseen; the fear of what might happen after sundown; the idea that the protagonists are being watched and stalked by a creature of some intelligence. It's a shame that BAIT doesn't hit the same marks.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 May 2015 21:37:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Aug 2015 20:49:59 BDT
Well I don't agree. We all know what a Saltwater Croc and a Great White look like (though they were supposed to be Tiger Sharks as explained in the featurette) so keeping them "hidden" would be detrimental to the audience-and both those Croc films showed the croc anyway. I don't think the film is tongue-in-cheek exclusively, there is enough decent acting and it is based in reality-what if a tsunami did hit, and unlike Eli Roth's stupid and very ordinary and non-horror 'Aftershock' where he seemed to wallow in a natural misfortune to excuse boring 'Saw', 'Hostel' and 'Purge'-like violent theatrics, it was treated well-with good deaths scenes as soon as the wave hit so the sharks only added to it. The cast worked well to make you care, ther were proper conversations with people sounding like they were thinking about what was going on and could come up with solutions if they tried hard enough.

For some reason, snobbery seems to treat croc films more seriously than shark ones, and I think the amount of truly bad Z feature ones may have something to do with it, but all anyone has to do is watch this to know this has far more in comon with all the proper animal attackers of class ('Jaws', 'Frogs', 'The Pack', 'Link' etc.) to know it's a completely different beast and comparing it to them is like comparing 'The Terminator' with 'Short Circuit'.

The 3D gimmick the market obviously tried to push can be blamed for 'Bait's' few shortcomings-and that one overactor who thinks he's in a panto the twit, but it only constitutes a few scenes-so it hardly harms it at all. You haven't mentioned extremely classy Great White Horror 'The Reef' done 5 years ago, making me think you haven't seen it. Why does 'Bait' have to have anything on 'Jaws'? Seriously this again? Does anyone watching the million stupid cannibal films coming out say "they've nothing on 'Night Of The Living Dead" even though they're more blinkered by the format than 'Bait' could ever be, I can happily compare this with 'Jaws' and it comes out very well-unlike the new "Bond" films that are just not Bond at all but Bourne. Or bored even. 'Bait' is one of the best animal attacks films of recent years in a genre we never get any more, and unlike, say, 'The Breed'-which was a not bad but blatant and rather wimpy rip-off of the superior 'The Pack' (and 'Bait' is far nearer 'Jaws and 'Jaws 2' in quality) than 'Breed' was to 'Pack', 'Bait' tried something different. The tsunami was a great idea and having two groups of trapped and submerged people (underground car park and the supermarket itself) made for an excellent premise. It's easy to support the croc ones-they dumped people in the outback-natural setting and all that. Or is it?

People spend far more time on the beaches, malls and supermarkets of the cities. 'Bait' makes more sense and I've watched with mates many times (without the need to drink) and the CGI/3D thing is really barely used and so weakly deployed it couldn't even begin to harm a very good film.

This flies in the face of the "fear of the unseen". Fear of this is all we get now-and it means nothing cos it is nothing. 'Silent House', 'Dead End', 'Them'-a million others-show nothing-cos they HAVE nothing to show-just stupid asbo brats trying to pretend they're shadows-yeah right or idiots setting up fake haunts so they can knife a camera crew or kill their boyfriend in the most unnatural way on camera (yes I mean you 'The Last Exorcism' and 'Paranormal Activity').

'Bait' is not done to be like 'Rogue' or 'Black Water'-it's a brilliant diaster movie setting in a horror film. Them trying not to be eletrocuted by power cables, or drown underground, while avoiding being shark chum are the 3 factors relevant to this film that the croc films naturally do without as they weren't brave enough to have that premise in the first place. Biut at least with 'Rogue' the idiot director of the dire 'Wolf Creek' proved he could do one decent movie-before going right back to beyond basics.

'Bait' swims neatly up to the quality of those Croc frilms, plus 'The Reef'-which you really ought to see if you haven't-it'll fill in all your requirements you seem to think 'Bait' should, even though the setting is entirely different-for 'The Reef'-think 'Open Water' and 'Black Water'. 'Rogue' had more land based chances for the cast so is a little behind on that one, but in that sense, it's a bit like 'Bait' too. What 'The Reef' achieved with its low budget and the shots that put the great white shark right in the water WITH the cast is turly 'Jaws' dropping!

And I don't think 'Jaws' is the best animal attack film-that's a major disservice to 'The Pack' and 'The Birds' and its brilliant sequel (which incidentally I saw first, grew up with and always preferred) and the next division like 'Frogs', 'Link' and 'Grizzly'. Sure 'Jaws' is excellent but why does they're only have to be one, when for every million slasher/cannibal/fake haunter out there, each ones is termed "great as the past last"?

Again it comes down to snobbery-and the sort of ridiculous method of boxes that people have-that an any kind of horror film that uses imagination today instead of the tired old human killer thing is somehow inferior for that very reason, cos you know, people killing people is the future of horror. Oh dear even.

Posted on 15 Aug 2015 15:38:58 BDT
Cb1306 says:
Great review. Totally agree with your summary, I too have sat through countless crappy shark movies (2 headed, mega, sand, ghost etc) but along with deep blue sea & shark night this is the only other one worth watching.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details



Location: Boston, United Kingdom

Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,319