Q: Oh God, I must have seen this when I was only 11 or twelve, (don't ask how) I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Anyone could see that this is a bad movie, nasty, gross, unscary and very silly. I've seen more impressive effects at Disneyland, I've seen better performances at a school play, And I've seen more convincing crocodiles at the zoo, where they do nothing but sit in the water, ignoring the children tapping on the glass.

The story is set in northern Australia. A handful of ambitious young people, are trying out a new water sport, surfing in shark filled waters. It soon becomes evident that something more dangerous is in the water. After they learn what, they get the help of a grizzly middle aged fisherman, who wants to kill the animal to avenge the eating of his family.

I think I have seen every crocodile film made in the last fifteen years, the best of which is Lake Placid, and the worse of which is its sequel. Blood Surf would have to be the second worst croc flick I think, with Primeval and Crocodile tailing closely behind.

The Australian Saltwater Crododile is one of the most dangerous creatures out there, resulting in more than a hundred injuries or deaths every year. Movies like Blood Surf however ruin not only the ferocious image of such a creature, but a good hour and a half of the viewer's life. Unless you really want to see it, avoid Blood Surf.
A: negative
Q: I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased.
A: negative
Q: Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).
A: positive
Q: An interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.
A: negative