The Shark Movie That Sank Before It Swam: A Commentary on 'Chum' and the State of Cinematic Thrills
There’s something undeniably captivating about a good shark movie. Maybe it’s the primal fear of the unknown depths, or the thrill of humanity pitted against nature’s most perfect predator. But let’s be honest—the genre is a minefield. For every Jaws, there are dozens of forgettable, often laughable attempts to recapture that magic. Enter Chum, a film that, according to recent reviews, doesn’t just miss the mark—it torpedoes itself into the abyss of cinematic mediocrity. Personally, I think what makes this particularly fascinating is how it manages to fail in ways that feel both predictable and bizarrely innovative.
The Plot: A Recipe for Disaster?
On paper, Chum sounds like a serviceable B-movie thriller: a newlywed couple, a Mediterranean yacht, a shark, and a psychopathic killer. It’s a cocktail of tropes that, in the right hands, could deliver mindless fun. But here’s where it gets interesting: the film reportedly leans so heavily on its AI-generated carnage that it loses any semblance of coherence or tension. What many people don’t realize is that AI in filmmaking isn’t just about cutting costs—it’s about pushing boundaries. But when those boundaries are pushed without artistic vision, the result is less Jaws and more Jaw-droppingly bad.
AI Slop: When Technology Becomes the Villain
One thing that immediately stands out is the film’s use of AI for its shark attacks. The reviewer describes the effects as ‘insane,’ with victims floating awkwardly into the shark’s mouth like they’re auditioning for a zero-gravity ballet. From my perspective, this is a perfect example of technology outpacing storytelling. AI can create stunning visuals, but when it’s not integrated seamlessly, it becomes a distraction. What this really suggests is that filmmakers are still grappling with how to use AI ethically and effectively. It’s not just about what the technology can do, but what it should do to serve the narrative.
Characters You’ll Root Against
The characters in Chum are described as ‘awful’ and ‘insufferable,’ with dialogue so stale it could double as a museum exhibit. Alice Eve, the only recognizable face, is reportedly the only one putting in any effort. This raises a deeper question: why do so many genre films skimp on character development? In my opinion, it’s because they assume the audience is there for the spectacle, not the story. But if you take a step back and think about it, even the most over-the-top thrillers need characters we care about—or at least find entertaining. Otherwise, why not just root for the shark?
The Editing: A Masterclass in Missed Opportunities
The reviewer notes some bizarre editing choices, like slow-motion sequences that feel completely out of place. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader trend in modern filmmaking: the obsession with style over substance. Slow motion can be powerful when used sparingly, but when it’s thrown in to pad the runtime, it becomes a crutch. A detail that I find especially interesting is how the music amps up every time someone enters the water, as if the audience needs to be reminded that danger is imminent. It’s like the film doesn’t trust its own tension.
The Broader Implications: What Does Chum Say About the Industry?
Chum isn’t just a bad shark movie—it’s a symptom of a larger issue in Hollywood. Theatrical releases are increasingly dominated by films that prioritize spectacle over storytelling, and Chum seems to embody this trend. What this really suggests is that studios are willing to gamble on cheap, AI-driven effects to lure audiences into theaters. But here’s the thing: audiences aren’t stupid. They can tell when a film is phoning it in. If you take a step back and think about it, Chum could be a cautionary tale about the dangers of relying too heavily on technology at the expense of creativity.
Final Thoughts: Is Chum Worth the Bite?
Personally, I think Chum is the kind of film that will find its audience—just not the one it was aiming for. It’s perfect for a midnight screening with friends, where the worse it gets, the more fun it becomes. But as a serious attempt at a shark thriller? It’s dead in the water. What many people don’t realize is that even B-movies need a certain level of craftsmanship to be enjoyable. Chum seems to have skipped that memo entirely.
In the end, Chum isn’t just a bad movie—it’s a missed opportunity. It could have been a clever commentary on human nature, a pulse-pounding thriller, or even a campy delight. Instead, it’s a reminder that sometimes, the most dangerous thing in the water isn’t the shark—it’s the filmmaker’s lack of vision.
