"Sharknado 5" continues in the direction of its predecessors, but this time they failed. Previous films have been based on unrealistic, but established quasi-scientific premises, and they stuck to them so that all the time you can be clear about what, how and why. This time, through most of the film I had no idea what was going on. Confusing, illogical and full of holes and with no quasi-scientific explanation that would give some sort of credibility to the story. Bunch of events that do not hold your attention, unconvincing story, poor CGI and unforgivably bad acting of several actors. Too stupid for a serious movie, and not nearly enough over-the-top to be a hilarious ride, like those brought to us by its prequels. But I can not completely bury it, because it does have some bright moments. The film is full of references, both verbal and visual, to pop culture and some cult films, and several times I sincerely laughed.5/10If you carefully follow the details, you will recognize references to "Lady and the Tramp", James Bond, "Star Trek", "Wonder Woman", "An American Werewolf in London", "Back to the Future", "Monty Python's Flying Circus", Indiana Jones, "Mission Impossible", "Mad Max" and others.

The movie I watched was spectacular and the physics of this movie was just too true to be in here. The acting was on point not one mistakes and The main character acted like a human who dosnt care if someone does in front of them. The CGI was better then all the star wars movie. The only bad thing Is that the bad Indiana Jones character was in here. But we can all agree that this movie should of won all Emmie awards.

This one managed. I would have just turned it off, but I was visiting friends and they wanted to watch it (apparently this was at least their second time through) and obviously I was trying to be a good guest so I just sat there quietly seething at what was happening on the screen, turning my thoughts towards analyzing exactly what about this stupid movie was making me so mad.It's entirely possible, since I never saw the first four and maybe it would either make more sense or be less annoying if I understood the backstory, that I'm missing a critical key to understanding why this movie was made in the first place, who thought it up, why tornados that fling sharks all over the place should even be permitted to exist, etc. The cutesy names "Fin" and "Gil" did nothing to improve my mood. The various cameo appearances didn't help. The unrelenting, constant barrage of multiple "sharknados" every time there was the slightest lull in the dialogue didn't help. The effects were garbage, the acting was worse, the plot was flimsy and mostly incomprehensible (again, I didn't see the earlier installments, so this might be explainable with more prior knowledge).The thing that just about sent me over the edge was Olivia Newton-John, who was unrecognizable from my long-ago memories of her early album covers. My friends told me it was her, but it was several minutes before I was ready to believe them. I've changed in the past 35 years too, but that was still quite a shock.In short, lots of yelling, lots of lousy effects, very little plot, and every time things slow down a bit it's "whoa, better have another sharknado, our last one was four whole minutes ago". This movie makes Edward D. Wood Jr. look like Orson Welles.

And thus it is a work of wonder, a film in which sharks are caught up in a tornado whose origin is not entirely clear (And do we care? A mysterious mystical stone is as good a reason for unleashing the aerial selachimorpha mayhem as any other), but that nevertheless ensures that the franchise just keeps spinning. Add Fabio as the Pope and the majesterial Dolph Lundgren, and you have a film that pushes right on through to the cinematic other side and writes its own rules. There are naysayers who say nay, but I don't care: All hail Fin! All hail Sharknado!