Summary
While 2024’s Netflix hitUnder Parismight seem original, the eco-horror has a precedent in a forgotten 2008 movie. Directed byFrontier(s)director Xavier Gens,Under Parisis a wild new horror movie that pits the people of Paris against Lilith, a particularly vicious shark. Bérénice Bejo’s Sophia is still getting over her partner’s death in a shark attack when she learns that the Seine is now home to the same shark that killed him. This sets in motion a race against time as Sophia battles with the local government and attempts to get the river cordoned off.
AlthoughUnder Paris’s ending is wild, the final twist is no more shocking than the preceding movie. Under Paris has been called “The best shark movie since Jaws” by some breathless reviews, but its dividedRotten Tomatoesscore proves that not everyone has been overly impressed by its bizarre story. For some critics, the logical problems withUnder Paris’ central conceit are too much to ignore. For others, the gory horror of Lilith’s rampage hides a multitude of sins, and once the shark attacks begin, it is tough to care about the real-life water temperature sharks require.
Under Paris Parents' Guide: Is The Netflix Movie Suitable For Kids?
Under Paris has been a massive success for Netflix, but is the shark thriller suitable for children? Here’s a parents' guide to the new movie.
Shark In Venice Has A Similar Premise To Netflix’s Under Paris
Under Paris and Shark In Venice Share An Ambitiously Silly Conceit
Shark in Veniceis just as bad as its rating implies, but that’s why it is good.
One thing that seems undeniable is that, whether reviewers love it or hate it,Under Pariscertainly seems to have an original premise. However, this isn’t necessarily true. AlthoughUnder Paris’ cast of charactersis entirely new, the premise of a shark making its way into a European city’s waterways and wreaking havoc has been seen before.2008’s simply titledShark in Veniceexplored largely the same plot asUnder Paris, although the titular predator posed a bigger threat in the Italian city since its water levels meant most transport routes were canals and bridges rather than roads.
Venice has famously high water levels, resulting in the city’s unique architecture utilizing canals instead of roads.Shark in Venicetook advantage of this as Stephen Baldwin’s archaeologist David Franks tussled with a lone shark that mysteriously made it within the city limits. With only one shark hunting its cast,Shark in Veniceisn’t as gory asNetflix’s new killer shark movie. However, it also isn’t as atrociously bad as its meager 2.5IMDbrating might suggest. Or, more aptly,Shark in Veniceis just as bad as its rating implies, but that’s why it is good.
Shark In Venice Is A Fun B-Movie
Like a lot of Stephen Baldwin’s prodigious output,Shark in Veniceis absurdly silly but tough to truly hate. The CGI is notably bad even by 2008 standards, which says a lot, and the movie makes no attempts to explain its many plot holes. WhereUnder Pariscomes up with an unlikely justification for its city slicker sharks,Shark in Veniceinstead concerns itself with an absurd treasure-hunting subplot that goes nowhere and is also utterly unnecessary. The acting is over-the-top, and the all-important shark isn’t remotely scary. It is noUnder Paris, but it is a lot of fun.
