While 2024’s Netflix hit Under Paris might seem original, the eco-horror has a precedent in a forgotten 2008 movie. Directed by Frontier(s) director Xavier Gens, Under Paris is 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.

Although Under 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 divided Rotten Tomatoes score proves that not everyone has been overly impressed by its bizarre story. For some critics, the logical problems with Under 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.

Shark In Venice Has A Similar Premise To Netflix’s Under Paris

Under Paris and Shark In Venice Share An Ambitiously Silly Conceit

One thing that seems undeniable is that, whether reviewers love it or hate it, Under Paris certainly seems to have an original premise. However, this isn’t necessarily true. Although Under Paris’ cast of characters is 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 titled Shark in Venice explored largely the same plot as Under 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 Venice took 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 Venice isn’t as gory as Netflix’s new killer shark movie. However, it also isn’t as atrociously bad as its meager 2.5 IMDb rating might suggest. Or, more aptly, Shark in Venice is just as bad as its rating implies, but that’s why it is good.

Why Shark In Venice Is Still Worth Watching (Despite Bad Reviews)

Shark In Venice Is A Fun B-Movie

Like a lot of Stephen Baldwin’s prodigious output, Shark in Venice is 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. Where Under Paris comes up with an unlikely justification for its city slicker sharks, Shark in Venice instead 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 no Under Paris, but it is a lot of fun.

Sources: Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb