Sous la Seine

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.

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.

To each his own, I think people are taking this way too seriously forgetting it's just a shark movie.

Me, I love a good stupid movie, I really do and when you couple that with some over the top shark shenanigans, you're usually in for a good time. For the most part I enjoyed Under Paris but I think the movie's biggest problem is it doesn't know whether it wants to be a serious study as to how negatively humanity has affected nature (the Siene river is one of the most polluted rivers in the world) or just a fun action movie a la The Meg. The first half of the movie wants so badly to be Jaws, you can almost hear the theme music playing every time Sophia has a flashback, but once they go into the catacombs and discover Lilith's nest, things veer into the realm of the ridiculous, admittedly the best aspects of the film.

(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.

New ideas? No.

Great actors? Nope.

Great CGI? Not bad, not great.

Screenwriters doing their best not to be replaced by AI? Not this time.

Netflix delivering another mediocre production? Yes.

I was hoping to see a great action movie as the french have already shown they can produce, but it's just a long series of palms to forehead thinking there's no way people can be that stupid and just trying to suicide by shark.

I appreciate though the premise of this movie and still hope someday people will fully understand the bad consequences of water pollution although I'm pretty sure giant sharks are not one of those.