En las profundidades del Sena

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.

The actors are ok, the script is pretty much as bad as any shark movie, but it lacks explanation about why the shark goes to Paris, why has it tripled in size, why it can self reproduce etc... a bit of logic never hurts.

The main focus is actually the Olympic Games in Paris put in the limelight by the lack of preparation from Paris City Hall. Anne Marivin does a good job playing a completely incompetent, dishonest, ruthless, politically driven mayor of Paris that everyone will recognize easily. The only differences are that she's pretty and she can speak French. Shame she doesn't get gulped by the shark.

Ok movie, worth a watch just to break the rhythm of the Netflix TV series.

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.