User Reviews

So. First things first: this movie will most likely entertain you sufficiently, that's why it got 5/10 stars from me. It's also got Berenice Bejo who I adore and who clearly needed to pay a mortgage or something. But apart from that this film is wild: Sharks in the Seine! A shark nest in the catacombs! The mandatory ignorant mayor! A dumb plan involving explosives! Lots and lots of dead people! A triathlon-turned-breakfast-buffet! World War II shells! And a tsunami. No clue where all that additional water came from but there's a tsunami. Whoever wrote this and felt confident enough to send the script in and somehow secured funding, kudos, I'm in awe. No shred of logic or reason will obfuscate your viewing experience.

It started off very strong and watching it in French with subtitles really added to the ambience for me as nothing was lost in translation and acting seemed decent.

The more the story progressed, the more it became apparent Deep Blue Sea was an influence with some of the deaths and shots/angles that were filmed.

It stays believable until around a third of the way in and then things start to become unrealistic but forgiving at this stage. By the third act, it loses all integrity and becomes laughable in places. The way the shark flips the RIB and everyone out of it, the speed in which it kills swimmers in the triathlon, the shells all going off and every bridge collapsing along the river. The list goes on.

There's some decent special effects throughout, especially of the traumatic amputations in the catacombs and of the sharks in general but the head of police and the mayor are extremely caricature and kill the depth of the story in my opinion even if the special effects were faultless.

Worth a watch but it's not a classic or a film you'll revisit, even if you're after a brain-disengage-type film.

Wow I really love shark movie but this movie is more of a comedy instead of thriller. I guess maybe the seriousness of the movie title and Netfix produce put my expectations up so I was looking for some logic in a shark movie. I shouldn't be doing that. I apologize.

A 10 meter long shark can live in catacomb and hundreds of its children can live there. Question: What are thier food source? Seine river wont have that many of fish that can feed them.

There is no way that bombs can survive under water for over decades and still able to explode in a sequence and big enough to induce a tsunami.

Also where is that all additional water coming from? Bomb explosion in seine river wont bring extra water from the sea and in the movie seine river is not even in flood season and there is no rain. How can that amount of water flooded the whole city and looks like its about 10 meters deep water in the city.

I guess the script is just as dumb as those people who make dumb decision. Also this is what I enjoy about shark movie!

Honestly, I'm sure a 5 year-old could make up a more logical story than this. I'm marking this review as having spoilers but it's hard to imagine how this rubbish could be spoiled.

The good parts first. It's well shot, the effects are competent and the performances are mostly adequate to quite good. That's as far as it goes.

The writing is abysmal. Not only have they clearly not made any reference to even a children's science book on sharks they have no logic or development. The characters are paper-thin or total parodies. Especially the mayor and her smug assistant.

What is the main shark being studied? Don't know. Why has it grown so unusually large? Don't know. After wiping out the protagonist's team in the Pacific Ocean how does it end up in Paris? Don't know. Why does the protagonist walk around Paris using a tracker to follow the shark but then just give up and walk away every time she gets to where the shark is? Don't know. How does the shark manage to time revealing its dorsal fin the moment she does turn her back? Don't know. How does a pelagic shark manage to adapt to live in fresh water? Don't know.

The film is just riddled with floating plots holes that need to be addressed but never are. Clearly one of the writers - there were many- thinks that Mako and salmon share the same life cycle or thinks that mutations occur in living individuals for no reason during their life.

Okay, it's a horror movie so expecting the sharks to follow actual behaviour patterns is a bit much to expect but this one makes Bruce look like a pacifist vegetarian. It never consumes a victim simply rips them apart and throws the parts around. That life cycle? From fry to eight foot shark in under two months? The food needed for that would be phenomenal and there are supposedly hundreds of them. Yes, they breed. Parthenogenically, yet another needless logical and biological plot hole.

Characters who have seen the results of the attacks don't believe the shark is there. Then they do. Then they don't. They ask the protagonist for help then refuse to listen to her. Their plans are absurd, which may be why they fail so dismally.

How this got funding is one of life's great mysteries. Why they didn't ask anyone who knows just the tiniest factoid about sharks to advise is another.

Check your brain in at the door and it's might be possible to pass the runtime just having a little fun. The po-faced nature of the script makes that very hard, though and it's clear the writers thought they were creating a scary masterpiece. It would have worked much better as a tongue-in-cheek parody allowing the over the top sequences and absurd pseudo-science to support rather than undermine the story.

In the end it's too serious to have fun with and too absurd to take seriously.

Most of the characters in this movie will anger you. They make the dumbest decisions for the wrong reasons. Some might even find joy in the character's death. Their conversations are the most brain-rotting pieces of text I've seen in a movie.

The setting of the movie is not believable in the slightest (although it is a fictional scenario). All of the scenes are exaggerated and confusing. Although the mc obviously has to survive throughout the movie, it's hard watching her make it through these impossible (literally) obstacles.

However, the terrible CGI of this movie makes it slightly amusing.

P.s. The movie leaves you on a cliffhanger.

As a real shark movie lover I wanted to give this a chance, for sure. It wasnt super bad and the actors are pretty ok, but ofc there are lots of 'dumb' people that fall into the water, that run around like idiots and ofcourse there is a government not believing things etc etc.

The CGI at some points was pretty ok but at various times it failed to deliver (specially when the shark jumps out of the water), but hey... at least it's not another sharknado type of movie (although that one doesnt take itself to serious and that might be even better).

The ending of this movie was another failure imo with to much questions still left to be answered... or will there be a part 2? Who knows. Overall... nice for a one time view but if you compare it with for example 47 meters down... this is nowhere near.

Well, where to start?

Horrible plot, illogical developments, bad CGI and animation, poor dialogue.

Whoever made this movie knows very little about sharks (or common sense).

Some ridiculous facts from the plot (spoilers ahead):

• Scientists take tissue samples out of a shark whilst they are vulnerable in the water with said shark
• The shark swims literally the long way across the globe to go up a dirty river to reproduce next to the sole survivor of their shark attack victims
• The characters' best way to investigate a dangerous shark is to get in the water with them without any protection
• Mutant sharks that grow and reproduce impossibly fast somehow create a giant colony in a city river and underwater chambers without any food source
• Somehow Paris was littered by artillery shells that did not have a fuse, but later in the movie explode due to their fuse being activated, creating explosions that would suggest they were mini nuclear warheads
• Said explosions cause a Tsunami that flood the whole city, magically materializing a body of water that did not exist

In summary, the script seems to be written by faulty AI, the development between events is not logical, the characters have no development, are shallow and act like dumb NPCs and the ending is a joke.

It is the kind of movie that would make me never want to watch another production from the same director ever again and that pushed me into creating an account just to leave this review.

It is a shame that we are doomed to be submitted by these generic, poor quality ghost of a movie genre. By comparison, The Meg feels like a cult production.

Watch at your own peril and thank Netflix for yet another trashy movie made for Zombies with dementia.

So many negative comments about how sharks couldn't be outside salt water etc (please do your research), how the movie wouldn't make sense. Thing is, it all does make sense. Especially since nature is unpredictable. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie. I love a good shark movie and it's hard to pull off a good one. People these days are such harsh critics wich is a shame. I don't think any shark movie would rate a 10/10. Not even Jaws, even tho that was the first of it's kind and a classic. The storyline was not to deep, no need for that since we don't really care about the actors in movies like these. We want to see some shark action right? And that's exactly what you get.

"Under Paris" is a film that, unfortunately, leaves much to be desired in terms of its storyline and character decisions.

There are numerous dumb choices made by the main character that simply do not align with the behavior of a studied and intelligent person. One of the most glaring examples is when she chooses to stay silent despite knowing that the shark is an assassin, over and over. Such nonsensical decisions make the storyline incredibly frustrating and feel like a disrespect to the audience's intelligence.

However, it's not all bad. The film does have its redeeming qualities, notably the beautiful photography of Paris. If only the plot and character development were as well thought out as the visuals, "Under Paris" could have been a much more enjoyable experience.

There is lots of WTF moments that make you wanna spit on the screen.

It is a good idea for a movie with a poorly written plot.

Under Sea is a real disrespect to spectators and to cinema itself.

For those, who are giving it 5 or 10 stars, how does a good or a bad movie look like? It was pointless to make the film. I'm shocked that this is nowadays considered to be a bad film. It is full of inconsequences, time travelers and unnatural behavior. It is really beyond comprehension who and why spends so much money and effort on this. Now that's real environmental pollution. The actors are all annoying, stupid and B-grade. You can't identify with anyone. In three years, how much more could a shark have reproduced that has now given birth to dozens of sharks in a few days? It's all a load of nonsense. What kind of shark movie has hardly any blood in it? Just so it doesn't get an R rating?