In honor Shark Week, today’s scene that I love comes from one of my favorite shark movies!
Things can get crazy out there, especially on the Jersey Shore. How can you fight a shark if you can’t even keep your Vinnys straight?
From 2012’s Jersey Shore Shark Attack:
4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
Today, the Shattered Lens remembers director Andrew V. McLalgen, born 106 years ago on this day. It’s time for….
4 Shots From 4 Andrew V. McLaglen Films
McLintock! (1963, dir by Andrew V. McLaglen, DP: William H. Clothier)
Bandolero! (1968, dir by Andrew V. McLaglen, DP: WIlliam H. Clothier)
Hellfighters (1968, dir by Andrew McLaglen, DP: William H. Clothier)
Ffolkes (1980, dir by Andrew V. McLaglen, DP: Tony Imi)
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, it is the one that is most adaptable to change.” — Sophia
Under Paris is one of those movies that grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go—literally, in this case. Directed by Xavier Gens, the mind behind gritty, high-octane thrillers like Frontier(s) and The Divide, this creature feature dives headfirst into the claustrophobic nightmares lurking beneath the City of Light. And let me tell you, if you’ve ever romanticized the Parisian catacombs, this film will cure you of that real quick.
The story kicks off with a team of scientists exploring the unexplored tunnels under Paris, only to stumble upon something that definitely shouldn’t exist. What starts as a routine expedition turns into a fight for survival when they realize they’re not alone down there. The creatures in question are blind, feral, and terrifyingly fast, with a taste for human flesh. It’s The Descent meets Tremors, but with a distinctly French flair. The film wastes no time setting up its premise, throwing the audience into the dark, cramped corridors where every shadow could be a predator. The tension is palpable from the jump, and Gens doesn’t bother with slow-burn scares—this is a full-throttle horror ride.
What makes Under Paris stand out is its commitment to practicality. The creatures are brought to life with a mix of practical effects and CGI, and for the most part, it works. The designs are grotesque yet believable, with elongated limbs, jagged teeth, and a primal way of moving that makes them feel like something out of a nightmare. The practical effects, in particular, give the creatures a tangible weight that CGI alone often struggles to achieve. When they’re on screen, you believe they’re real, and that’s half the battle in a monster movie. The sound design deserves a shoutout too—the way the creatures communicate through clicks and hisses is unsettling in the best way, adding to the immersive dread.
The characters are, admittedly, a mixed bag. The cast is led by a group of scientists and urban explorers, each with their own quirks and backstories, but the film doesn’t spend much time fleshing them out. This is a survival horror flick, not a character study, so don’t expect deep emotional arcs. That said, the actors do a solid job with what they’re given. The standout is probably the team’s leader, whose growing desperation as the situation spirals out of control feels authentic. There’s also a refreshing lack of the usual horror-movie stupidity—most of the characters make decisions that, while not always smart, at least feel human. They panic, they argue, they try to rationalize the irrational, and it makes their plight all the more relatable.
The setting is a character in its own right. The labyrinthine tunnels under Paris are a horror fan’s dream—narrow, dimly lit, and filled with the kind of eerie silence that makes every distant noise sound like a death sentence. Gens and his cinematographer make the most of the claustrophobic environment, using tight camera angles and rapid cuts to keep the audience on edge. There’s a sequence early on where the team’s headlamps flicker, plunging them (and us) into total darkness, and it’s a masterclass in building tension without relying on jump scares. The film also does a great job of playing with sound, or the lack thereof. In the quiet moments, all you hear is the characters’ ragged breathing and the distant, unsettling skittering of something inhuman.
If Under Paris has a weakness, it’s that it doesn’t always know when to slow down. The pacing is breakneck, which works for the most part, but there are moments where a little breathing room would’ve helped. Some of the CGI, particularly in the wider shots, can look a bit rough, though it’s never bad enough to pull you out of the movie. And while the creatures are terrifying, their backstory is a bit thin. The film hints at a larger mythology—something about evolution and isolation—but it’s never fully explored. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it does leave you with a few unanswered questions.
All that said, Under Paris delivers exactly what it promises: a tense, visceral, and often downright terrifying descent into madness. It’s a film that understands the assignment—give the audience scares, gore, and a sense of dread that lingers long after the credits roll. Gens has a knack for blending horror with social commentary, and while Under Paris doesn’t dive as deep into the latter as some of his other work, it’s still there in the margins. The idea of something monstrous lurking beneath the surface of one of the world’s most romanticized cities is a potent one, and the film doesn’t shy away from the metaphorical implications.
In the end, Under Paris is a must-watch for horror fans, especially those who appreciate their scares with a side of action. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s a damn effective one. It’s the kind of film you’ll want to watch with the lights off, the volume up, and maybe a friend or two to clutch onto when things get really intense. And trust me, they do. Xavier Gens has crafted a creature feature that’s as brutal as it is brilliant, and it’s a testament to his skill as a director that, even in the darkest, most chaotic moments, you’re never quite sure what’s going to happen next. Just don’t blame me if you start side-eying manhole covers after this one.
Today is Hong Kong film star Donnie Yen’s 63rd birthday. The first time I remember seeing him on screen was in Yuen Woo-Ping’s 1993 film IRON MONKEY. He kicked butt then and he’s still kicking it to this day!
Celebrate with me by watching this clip from the martial arts classic!
Earlier today, my sister asked me if I could put together some posts to help celebrate Shark Week. I thought about it and I decided that the best way to start Shark Week would be to pay tribute to the film that is responsible for our nation-wide obsession with sharks! Here, for the first day of Shark Week, is some images inspired by the film that started it all!
If you were walking along the beach and you noticed that several bikinis had washed up on shore, what would you do?
Me, I would probably think to myself, “That’s weird. Maybe I should get off this beach because it seems like there’s something strange happening here.” What I would not do, under any circumstances, would be to pick up a bikini and decide to wear one of them.
I mean, that just seems like common sense. You don’t wear bikinis that randomly show up on the beach for much the same reason you don’t dumpster-dive for new underwear. It’s gross. And seriously, if you’re going to the beach, you should have bought and packed a bikini before you left. It may be cheaper to just wear whatever you find buried in the sand, but sometimes it’s worth spending a little money to look good.
Like I said …. IT’S COMMON SENSE!
Unfortunately, none of the characters in 2025’s Bikini Shark have a shred of common sense. When two women come across some bikinis on the beach, they promptly put them on. Later, when another group of women happens to find some bikinis in an isolated house, they also put them on. Soon they’re breaking out into terrible rashes and, even worse, they’re being pursued by sharks that somehow have the power to live and move on land. For all the time everyone spends talking about how sick they’re feeling, it never seems to occur to anyone to just take the cursed bikinis off. Then again, no one seems to think it’s odd that there are sharks somehow making their way into the kitchen.
The villain here is Truman Sullivan (Tyler Winchcombe), a wealthy man who owns a company that makes bikinis. For reasons that are never really that clear, Truman has lost his mind and is convinced that the only way to save the world from destruction is to sacrifice women to sharks. So Truman designed some bikinis specifically to attract sharks. But why did he also design the bikinis to cause the wearer to break into a terrible rash and start throwing up? How does that fit into saving the world? Truman is one of those villains who insists that the sacrifices have to happen quickly but who, at the same time, kidnaps one potential victim and then spends what seems like an eternity monologuing. Hey, Truman, are you trying to save the world or not?
Bikini Shark is a British shark film. It takes place in Essex and features one of the most depressing beaches that I’ve ever seen. The acting is subpar. In the role of Truman’s mother, Kathi deCuoto often appears as if she’s struggling to deliver her dialogue without laughing. If there is some charm to be found in this film, it’s due to the CGI sharks. They’re cute in their way, and it’s hard not to smile at the sight of them “swimming” over dry land. Otherwise, the best that can be said about this film is that it lives up to its name. There are bikinis and there are sharks.
Seriously, though, don’t wear clothes that you just happen to find on the ground. If there’s any lesson that I hope you take from this review, it’s that.
Hi, everyone! Tonight, on twitter, I will be hosting one of my favorite films for #MondayMania! Join us for Til Ex Do Us Part!
You can find the movie on Prime and then you can join us on twitter at 9 pm central time! (That’s 10 pm for you folks on the East Coast.) See you then!
4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!
We’re jus two days away from the birthday of the legendary Italian director, Enzo G. Castellari! Here are….
4 Shots From 4 Enzo G. Castellari Films
Keoma (1976, dir by Enzo G. Castellari, DP: Aaice Parolin)
The Last Shark (1981, dir by Enzo G. Castellari, P: Alberto Spagnoli)
1990: Bronx Warriors (1982, dir by Enzo G. Castellari, DP: Sergio Salvati)
Escape From The Bronx (1983, dir by Enzo G. Castellari, DP: Blasco Giurato)
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in hosting a few weekly live tweets on twitter and occasionally Mastodon. I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of Mastodon’s #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We snark our way through it.
Tonight, for #MondayActionMovie, the film will be 1997’s Laserhawk!
It should make for a night of fun viewing and I invite all of you to join in. If you want to join the live tweets, just hop onto Mastodon, find the movie on YouTube and hit play at 8 pm et, and use the #MondayActionMovie hashtag! The watch party community is a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
See you soon!
So, No Escape is a movie that, if you’re a fan of mid-90s action flicks, you’ve probably stumbled across on late-night cable at some point. Directed by Martin Campbell, a guy who would go on to resurrect James Bond with GoldenEye, this 1994 sci-fi romp is a strange, almost forgotten artifact from a time when every action movie seemed to be set in a grim, corporate-run future. It’s a movie that borrows so heavily from its predecessors that you could make a drinking game out of spotting the references, yet it does it all with such earnest, sweaty commitment that it’s hard to completely hate. It’s a film that, in a perfect world, should have been a genre classic, but its own bloat and inconsistent rhythm drag it down to the level of a solid, slightly-defective guilty pleasure.
The setup is pure B-movie gold. It’s the year 2022, which felt super futuristic back then, and the world has privatized its prison system. Ray Liotta stars as Captain Robbins, a man sentenced to life on the brutal island prison of Absolom after he kills his commanding officer. The premise of a super-max prison on a remote island, a “civilized” versus “savage” faction of inmates, and a hero who just wants to escape is a greatest-hits medley of Escape from New York, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, and Papillon. The film’s villain, Marek, played by a gloriously over-the-top Stuart Wilson, leads a tribe of leather-clad maniacs called the Outsiders, while Lance Henriksen’s Father leads the peaceful, agrarian community of Insiders. Our hero is thrust between them, forced to navigate tribal politics while plotting his getaway. It’s as familiar as an old pair of boots, but there’s a comfort in that familiarity, a sense that you know the beats and can just enjoy the ride.
And for a while, the ride is genuinely fun. Campbell, who clearly has an eye for widescreen spectacle, makes the lush Australian location look both beautiful and hostile. The production design is actually one of the film’s strongest assets; the Outsiders’ camp is a junkyard nightmare, while the Insiders’ village is a quaint, shanty-town paradise built from salvaged scrap. It gives the film a distinct, tactile feel that a lot of sterile sci-fi movies lack. Liotta is perfectly cast as the tough, morally ambiguous soldier. He brings a rough, cerebral quality to the role, making Robbins feel like a guy who’s seen too much and is just plain tired. Stuart Wilson, meanwhile, hams it up as the villain Marek, delivering a performance so broad and gleefully evil that he borders on self-parody, but in a way that’s weirdly compelling and provides some much-needed comic relief. The film feels like it’s building to something great, a tense and explosive showdown between these two drastically different tribes.
The problem is that No Escape simply does not know when to stop. This is a movie with a lean, mean premise that somehow stretches itself out to nearly two hours, and you feel every single minute of the back half. The pacing is wildly inconsistent, lurching between tense survivalist stuff, full-blown action set pieces, and stretches of world-building exposition that just sit there and deflate the momentum the film worked hard to build. There are entire sequences that feel like they exist purely to pad the runtime, and by the time the third act rolls around and Robbins is organizing his prison-break uprising, you’re less excited by the payoff and more just relieved that the movie is finally getting somewhere. A tighter edit, trimming maybe twenty to thirty minutes of the connective tissue, would’ve turned this into a genuinely great B-movie instead of a good one hamstrung by its own indulgence.
That’s really the frustrating thing about No Escape. Everything that makes prison-island and dystopian-exile movies fun is present and accounted for here: a charismatic antihero, a nasty villain, a societal allegory bubbling under the surface, brutal action, and a satisfying underdog uprising. Campbell clearly understood the assignment and delivered those elements competently, sometimes even excitingly. But competent execution of familiar beats can only carry a movie so far when the film refuses to trim the fat, and the sluggish, uneven pacing keeps dragging you out of scenes that should be gripping. It’s the kind of movie that probably could’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with its genre influences if someone in the editing room had been a little more ruthless.
As it stands, No Escape lands squarely in guilty-pleasure territory. It’s not a film you’d necessarily recommend to someone as an essential genre entry, but if you’re already the type who loves this stuff, the dystopian island prisons, the tribal factions, the gruff antihero clawing his way toward freedom, there’s a lot here to enjoy despite the flab. It wears its influences on its sleeve, executes them with more skill than it probably gets credit for, and then undercuts itself by overstaying its welcome. Somewhere in this movie is a tight, mean ninety-minute action flick that could’ve been a minor classic. Instead we got a longer, baggier version that’s still worth a watch on a lazy afternoon, just with the fast-forward button within easy reach for the slower stretches.
Previous Guilty Pleasures
Through the Shattered Lens 