\”Diving headfirst into the genre with all the enthusiasm fans could hope for, the horror / disaster film “Under Paris” is sometimes campy and often ridiculous, but also stands out as a solid entry in the niche of killer shark flicks. It may not be a great film by conventional standards, but this one is not going to disappoint with its willingness to take the premise everywhere fans of creature feature cinema will want it to go. Set in current day, the city of Paris is getting ready to host the World Triathlon Championships on the Seine. They’re expecting a large number of athletes to compete by swimming in the famous river, but there’s a big, big problem. Sophia (Bérénice Bejo), a brilliant marine scientist with a tragic past, learns from environmental activist Mika (Léa Léviant) that there is a large shark living deep in the river. In order to avoid a literal bloodbath, they join forces with the Seine river police commander Adil (Nassim Lyes) to stop the potential carnage. It’s actually a pretty great premise, even if the science behind the narrative is (mostly) laughably implausible. While entertaining, the story gets bogged down under its over-the-top ecological messaging. The film is preachy about global warming and how humans are the real enemy, so much so that it can sometimes feel like it’s a project sponsored by Greenpeace. But there’s something admirable about director Xavier Gens‘ commitment to his message, and it adds a layer of sincerity to what is a creatively dumb premise. The movie strikes a nice balance between classic horror and a disaster story, bridging the two in a satisfying way. It has its dumb B-movie moments (including corny, stating-the-obvious dialogue like “There are sharks in Paris!“), but Gens avoids the outright stupidity of franchises like “Sharknado.” It’s absurd, but also delivers plenty of suspense and thrills. The action scenes are a mixed bag, with effects that feel very low budget. There’s a goofy shark fin that sticks out of and races through the river, and murky underwater shots dilute much of the action. But there are also bloody, gruesome shark attacks that seem very realistic, and the makeup department has created horrific images straight out of a nightmare. If you can stick with the slower parts of “Under Paris,” you’re going to be rewarded with a surprisingly great ending. Dumb yet creative, preachy yet thrilling, the movie takes its outlandish premise to all the places that fans of the genre will appreciate. By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS”

Louisa Moore - Screen Zealots

\”Under Paris is one of those movies that tries to be profound but ends up feeling hollow. The story is weak, offering little to no meaningful takeaway, and the characters don’t evolve in any way that makes you care about them. It feels like the filmmakers had a vague idea of what they wanted to achieve, but the execution completely missed the mark. The pacing is uneven, with scenes dragging on unnecessarily, and the overall narrative lacks cohesion. Visually, the movie has its moments. The cinematography captures some striking shots, and there’s an attempt to create tension through dramatic imagery. However, even these moments feel empty without a solid story or relatable characters to back them up. It’s a case of style over substance, where flashy visuals try to mask the lack of depth, but they don't succeed. In the end, Under Paris doesn’t leave you with much. It’s not entertaining enough to be memorable or thought-provoking enough to spark conversation. If you’re looking for a movie with compelling storytelling or emotional weight, this isn’t it. It’s a one-and-done kind of watch that leaves you wondering what the filmmakers were even trying to say.”

RalphRahal