The first half hour of the movie serves as a broad introduction to the theme of "sharks". The footage is really nice and the narrative gets the job done. <br /><br />Then the movie becomes much more political with the intention to change the common view of sharks as a lurking predator that is out to get us. The following explanation is good but the statistics that we are shown are ridiculous. It really isn't important to compare shark attacks with car accidents or whatever – I don't think that we basically will feel more safe to go swimming in an area with sharks if we know that more people die from drugs than from shark attacks. Really! I think that the director should have consulted someone with more flair for journalism when he decided to make this movie political.<br /><br />Then we enter the battle against the illegal fishing that is going on in order to get the fins from the sharks to shark fin soup. The theme is very relevant but again I think that director Rob Stewart should have stayed focused on what he is good at; portraying sharks underwater. I once heard how post-modernism influences the way an academic paper should be made; instead of giving the conclusion, show your observation and let the viewer (or reader) conclude for himself. I would have been more engaged if the movie had been produced accordingly. The way it was made left out any room for reflection; Everything was served "overcooked" and very easily digested. On top of that you sometimes didn't know what you were being served because the narrative didn't always give a well-rounded description of what was going on… <br /><br />Why did this movie get such a high rating on IMDb? I think – and this is entirely my own thought - that people, because of the importance of the theme, thinks that this movie needs to be seen by so many as possible.<br /><br />Regards Simon