Under Paris

Will this movie win any awards? No It was a full of your standard shark movie cliches and the middle drags a little, but I have to admit I was surprised in the last quarter of the film, and even though I was cheering for the shark (there was just too many stupid people waiting to be eaten) I did end up enjoying the film. I love shark movies though, so if you aren't generally into shark movies then this probably won't float your boat.

A lot of action at the beginning and end, lots of blood, heavy dose of environmental message which is very topical. Would I watch it again. Yeah I would. And I'd watch a sequel if that happens too.

A movie is not good when you are rooting for the villian. In this case, the shark was my superhero.

First of all, with 50 years of advanced technology, robotics, cgi and advancement in film....that sharks today look less realistic than Jaws? It is insane how fake today's sharks look.

To the story...it follows every cliche, nothing is original here, with scenes and dialogues almost straight out of Jaws or Deep Blue Sea.

Acting is way over-the-top, dialogue consists of screaming or incesseantly yelling someone's name. Sharks are fake looking, about the same level as a Sharknado And you cannot find one person making smart decisions. This is a complete miss.

You know how there's a whole set of films that's based on stupid people making stupid decisions?

Person 1: DON'T DO IT!

Person 2: *proceeds to do it anyway and gets killed* Audience: SHE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO IT! How dumb are you!?

Those types movies. However, if they're done well, you don't mind the stupidity in it and play along.

I kept reading "If you liked Jaws, you'll enjoy Under Paris." "One of the best Shark films since Jaws" - High praise. So, I had to watch it, despite low scores.

The dumb people in this film don't listen, do dumb things, and get killed. But it's been filmed well; it's intense, the sound design and cinematography keep you engaged. Shark graphics - decent enough. It's got enough going on to keep you engaged, the plot is not boring at all. The ending may have you scratching your head though.

Here's a perspective that I don't think anybody is considering - I don't know the first thing about Shark Biology or marine evolution, but I looked at the 'Sharks' as a metaphor for 'Climate Change' and the plot AND the ending suddenly made so much more sense. That made me feel like the movie was actually better than people are making it out to be.

Either that, or I'm just trying to convince myself that I didn't waste 2 hours watching stupid people make stupid decisions.

(Yes, I did spend a while trying to come up with a pun that I hadn't seen before).

As this film was gathering some traction on Twitter across the weekend, I decided that I should give it a go. Having assumed it would be an equivalent to the sort of film "The Asylum" make, I was surprised and interested to see that it was initially not that - though in all honesty it gets there by the end.

Having lost her crew, and husband, to Shark attack, on an expedition to the Pacific garbage patch, Sophia (Berenice Bejo) returns to Paris and works in an aquarium. Three years later she's contacted by an Environmentalist Mika (Lea Leviant) who explains that she's hacked shark tracking technology and that one has made it up the Seine, as far as Paris city centre. With Sophia refusing to help them, Mika and her associate Ben (Nagisa Morimoto) undertake the dive instead, with Mika being arrested. Mika, and later Sophia, try to convince River Patrol of the unlikely interloper, but with the Paris Triathlon imminent, the mayor (Anne Marivin) refuses to consider cancelling.

At the start the film is actually reasonably sensible. The shark is played as a looming threat, foreboding in the background or whipping through frame too quick to get a good look at. There's a clear environmental message, where climate change and sea pollution has changed the shark's natural habitats. Berenice Bejo, who was in "The Artist" is a decent lead and does have some chemistry with impossibly heroic Soldier turned River Police action man Adil, played by Nassim Lyes.

I guess the trouble with the film is that, towards the end it does drift into that 'Asylum' "Sharknado" territory with much more explicit use of the, now painfully cheap-looking, CGI Shark. I write my reviews without spoilers usually, and I'll continue to do so here, but I just don't understand how the ending happens. I liked how spectacular it was but where does the water come from?

You never know with Neflix just how well a film has actually done, but there's a chance from that ending that sequels, or sister films might be forthcoming. I'd hope they'd find a more consistent tone, either way, serious, or campy, to be satisfying. This is neither.

Starting with the fact that the main premise of the film, sharks in fresh water, is nonsense, the script itself was very empty of content. Like any horror films premises don't make sense and I guess that's okay with the genre? I don't know because I am not a fan of horror movies but I do enjoy suspense and that is what made me watch it in the first place but there was little to no suspense. No plot depth. Not much good to it actually. There are no good dialogues, no good character development and you don't really feel any attachment whatsoever to any of the characters so you don't care what happens to them. If that is not a sample of bad scriptwriting, I don't know what is. The cinematography is also plain and quite insipid... But hey, I enjoyed the lovely views of Paris a lot and that's why I gave it a 4 and not a 1.