![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Severely lacking, to me. On a geological front (I'm a geologist), the repeated switching between shots from deep below water implies a considerable depth of water (10-15m ; I'm a SCUBA diver too) immediately adjacent to emergent rocks ; (coral) reefs aren't like that, and the directors kept cutting to shots of such coral reefs.
The article suggests that only one shark is involved, but I didn't pick that up from the movie. This comment may be from some unidentified source.
Does realism matter? The Boundy link below includes a cite from the director : ' "It is based around the real-life shark attack off Townsville in 1983 and what those people must have gone through," Mr Traucki said. "I find true survival stories fascinating ... reality is far more intriguing than fiction"'
Find some links ... nothing on Wikipedia, according to Google. This one looks good. http://m.couriermail.com.au/archive/entertainment/film-reopens-painful-memories-for-shark-attack-victim/story-e6freqex-1226020395592 What the fuck is happening with this fancy editor? Weird things pasting links. Well screw that, I've spent enough time on this. Anyone who cares about movie reviews can use the info and comments. Aidan Karley ( talk) 02:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Reef attracted dozens and dozens of fan reviews and did well on DVD in the US. I can't find any online facts to substantiate the DVD claim but was told first hand by the director. I've added several of the reviews to try an improve notability. I've seen reviews that rated it better than JAWS for realism, or others who said OPEN WATER put them to sleep by comparison. For some fans it seems, The Reef is at least in the top 3 or top 5 of all shark films ever made. A lack of major studio support and publicity means you won't find reviews in the dailees, but I think the fans have spoken.