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 think this was the biggest fault with the movie. There were so many missed opportunities. The entire scene at the beach at the end of the movie was just wasted for example. The script was of course somewhat illogical with holes in it large enough to drive a, well, a Megalodon through them. This however was something that I more or less expected given the kind of movie. First of all it is science fiction and fantasy after all and second, it appears that these kind of movies never seem to get anything better than mediocre script writers…at best. There were some good things though. I have read the book and I didn’t really like it. In my review I gave it 2 out 5 five stars. The main reason for this was that the book was more of a bad soap opera than a horror/thriller. It was so filled with unlikable, scheming and backstabbing assholes that it was really not enjoyable. Jason’s ex wife was such a despicable bitch that she alone ruined the book for example. Luckily the movie had toned down that aspect of the book quite a lot. Actually, in the end, there was really only one truly despicable asshole in the movie and he met with the fate that he deserved thanks to his own stupidity. So, I did enjoy the movie and, as a science fiction and fantasy fan, I am glad to have watched it. I mean, a giant pre-historic shark on the big screen does have a certain cool-factor after all. It was somewhat saved by Jason Statham being in it though and it could have been a lot better.

John Chard

May 25, 2019

5.0

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 viable money making exercise and had this cut to be a "12" friendly bums on theatre seats cash grabber. Shame on them. What we get is a run of the mill creature feature that although once viewed does not leave a lasting impression (was anyone really hoping for that anyway?), but is kind of fun in that time filling sort of way. It runs through the modern day creature feature playbook 101. So off we go with the hero having a troubled backstory, a money made funder out of his depth, ladies with life quandaries, a man who can't swim working in the middle of the ocean! and on we go. Throw in some quite awfully scripted dialogue and it's cheese sarnie time. Statham is nearly always a good watch - in the muscle bound action hero kind of way - though you see the cracks between what the film was meant to be and what it ended up as. For you see that The Stath comes off as taking it all too seriously, which in this released cut is ridiculous. He's surrounded by no mark actors, though no short supply of beauty (Bingbing Li socko gorgeous/Ruby Rose hard sexy) and the narrative feeds us all the pointers of exactly where this will end up. There's a couple of nifty fun homages to Jaws, some decent suspense scenes, and the cinematography (Tom Stern) is pin sharp and pleasurable. Best bet to enjoy this is to know it's a "12" rated friendly piece, to understand it has ultimately ended up as a same old same old monster movie. It's a million miles away from the class of Jaws, and lacks the tongue in cheek knowing of Deep Blue Sea, but it fills a gap in that undemanding time wasting way. 5/10

Gimly

Aug 12, 2020

5.0

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._

CinemaSerf

Aug 31, 2023

5.0

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 IMAX screen, it moves along with all the pace of a milk-float despite the lively and energetic contribution from the enthusiastic Jason Statham as he attacks this enormous (depending on the camera angle) leviathan with a glorified Stanley knife. The remainder of the acting and pretty much all of the dialogue - "It's not about the people you lose, it's about the people you save" - is disappointingly banal and but for the very effective use of CGI this would achieve laughs not gasps. I hope Toni Basil got a few quid and I can't wait for the sequel....

r96sk

Apr 10, 2025

6.0

'The Meg' 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. 'Jaws' (obviously) and even 'Piranha' did it better, this one doesn't have anything fresh to add to the subgenre of man-eating fish. It kinda does its own thing for the first half, however by the end it really could just be a flick from either of those two named franchises. As noted, I did like those onscreen. Jason Statham isn't at his best but is nevertheless effortlessly entertaining. He, Li Bingbing and Sophia Cai are a cute trio. Cliff Curtis is pretty solid too. Page Kennedy is OK, I remember him from TV's 'Rush Hour' (I'm one of a few that actually saw and enjoyed that show). I can't imagine the sequel turned out any better. I am going to soon find out, here's hoping it does.