As a novelist, I’ve never done a full-fledged movie review before. But given my passion for both reading and writing marine terror books, it seems only right that my first foray should be with a film from the same genre.
“The Shallows” is a 2016 film directed by Jaume Collet-Serra and starring Blake Lively. I’ll say straight off that the film was an unqualified financial success, earning many times its budget. So now the question remains: was this financial windfall well-earned, and what does a novelist from the same genre think of the first successful “killer shark” film since Peter Benchley’s immortal “JAWS”?
To my surprise, I enjoyed the film. Having been barraged for decades with Jaws sequels, knockoffs, and made-for-cable movies of “Megashark” versus everyone one except my mother-in-law (coward!), I dreaded what was to come. Fortunately, and despite a few issues I will cover, the movie kept my attention and was eminently enjoyable. And, based on its box office returns, obviously the public (which was understandably hungry for a decent marine terror film) felt the same way.
Since I don’t like to do spoilers, I’m not going to go into a full synopsis here. Suffice it to say, the movie premise is exactly what is shown on the trailer – a young (and suitably attractive) woman escapes to her mom’s tropical surfing paradise, only to be mauled by a great white shark and trapped upon an isolated rock outcropping. She is stranded there, trying to stay alive, and hoping figure out a way to escape before the incoming tide swallows her tiny refuge and the shark swallows her.
The premise was understandably problematic from the get-go. How does one take a fairly simple story (trapped on rock, live or die) and keep an audience enthralled for 90+ minutes? The director did it, and did it well. I’ll go over the parts of the movie that I liked best, then cover the ones I could’ve done without.
The scene of the dolphin jumping over a swimming “Nancy” was a nice touch. When the POV indicated something underwater approaching her while she’s sitting on her board I feared the worst. My brain spat out, “Here we go, no real plot, just immediate gore…” Fortunately, the script dictated otherwise, and misdirection saved the scene (and possibly the film). Since we know the shark is coming, using teases like that helps to tantalize the viewer. Now they’re wondering, “Is the attack next or am I going to be tricked again?” It gave an aura of unpredictability to something that we knew was inevitable.
I thought the notion of Nancy fleeing to a thirty-foot humpback whale carcass after she is bitten was a nice touch. We know she’s on the menu, and the dead cetacean is further indicative of that (cherry on a sundae, anyone?). We also know her smelly refuge is a false one, giving fake hope. If anything, it puts her in more danger, as she’s now perched atop the shark’s buffet. Also, the fear of the whale’s rotting skin tearing off in her hands as she climbs, causing her to plummet back into the pursuing white shark’s rapidly-closing maw, was a nice touch.
Next comes the shark’s tooth and the dead surfer’s broken board. Nancy using the serrated tooth as a cutting tool, and a piece of a dead man’s surfboard to shield herself from the burning sun, was both sensible and appropriate. It made the viewer empathize with the physicality of her plight (sunburn, dehydration, and possible sunstroke, followed by relief at these threats being averted) as well as admire her intelligence and ingenuity. The scene where a drunken thief attempts to make off with Nancy’s phone and belongings, instead of helping, was also enjoyable. I thought the indecision on her part – wanting to believe the drunk was as honest as the now-dead surfers, only to find out he was just another scumbag – was well handled, albeit somewhat predictable. Another use of misdirection to put a fresh shine on an otherwise stereotypical scene. The thief’s subsequent death was expected, but still enjoyable (Note: just like in “Jurassic Park”, “Jurassic World” and a host of other movies, once you see a nice, plump person, they’re almost always on the menu).
The part where the great white knocks over the marker buoy Nancy has escaped to, and where she subsequently finds herself trapped inside its protective framework was, IMHO, a nice homage to the shark cage scene in JAWS. Well done. The appearance of the flare gun was also of note. Having seen her firing it in the trailer, I couldn’t help but sit there thinking, “I know I saw her firing some sort of gun in the preview, but Lord knows where she had it concealed in that swimsuit!” Apparently marker buoys come far better equipped than I’m aware of. Regardless, the scene was believable and well executed, with the possible exception of the ocean catching fire. I must have missed something there, because for the life of me I have no idea what caused that to happen.
Which leads us to the bad stuff; basically, points where my suspension of disbelief flew out the window and a “WTF?” response kicked in. First, let’s start with Nancy being bitten. The shark stalking her was a good 20-feet long and must’ve weighed 5,000 lbs. Its jaws would have left a much larger bite than it did. Her wound should’ve had a much wider, more crescent shape to it, possibly with a few individual tooth marks showing along the edges of the rent.
The whale carcass was also problematic. With twenty-tons of meat and blubber at its disposal, why is the shark bothering with a hapless surfer? This made no sense. Granted, an attempt to explain it as territoriality on the fish’s part was made, but from a marine biology perspective, that wouldn’t hold water (pun intended). White sharks have been seen numerous times, placidly feeding on whale carcasses next to smaller sharks, including tigers that they could bite in two, yet there is nary a beef between them (just blubber). Nature has ways of protecting its charges. With limitless food, why engage in damaging conflict? Just eat. The same thing applies here. The people should’ve been the last thing on the fish’s mind.
Then there was the matter of the fish hook embedded in the side of the great white’s mouth. This was, again, an effort to explain why the giant predator has inexplicably developed an irrational “Bruce-like” hatred of mankind (or womankind), and why it will kill any human it can sink its teeth into, all the while ignoring a succulent humpback buffet. That also made no sense. The inside of the mouth of most predator fish, especially sharks, is like sandpaper-coated concrete. A fish hook would be such a minor annoyance that it wouldn’t even be noticed. Sharks bite each other while mating all the time – some of the wounds are horrific. Does that mean they go around attacking one another constantly out of some bloodthirsty desire for “revenge”? Of course not.
There was also the issue of the fish claiming too many victims. By the time Nancy is presented in the buffet line, the shark has already killed and eaten three people (make that two-and-a-half, the drunk thief was only cut in two), which means it had swallowed a good 450 lbs. of man-flesh, plus several hundred more pounds of whale meat and blubber. A typical great white eats once every few days and a one-ton shark only needs around 66 lbs. every 12-15 days. Assuming our villainous fish weighs 5,000 lbs., that means it requires approximately 165 lbs. of flesh every two weeks. It had already consumed twice that in whale meat alone, and even if it hadn’t, the first surfer would have satiated it. Once a shark eats its fill, it typically does what sharks normally do: swims. To assume a shark that had already eaten 750 lbs. of meat was still able to move around comfortably, let alone behave in an aggressive manner and attack things left and right, is absurd.
Finally, the scene where the shark is killed irked me. Having first-hand experience with sharks, the notion that one of nature’s most efficient killers could be hot on the heels of a human being as they’re dragged toward the bottom and then miss them, matador-style, is absurd. Short of an underwater jet pack, there was simply no way Nancy could have gotten out of the fish’s way in time. The human body is pathetically slow in the water; we’re simply not designed for aquatic maneuvers. Great whites have evolved to hunt seals and sea lions – animals that slip and slide through the water as if they’re part of it. It would have detected Nancy’s body’s shift and slug-like course change and compensated for it instantly.
Some of these points may be considered nitpicking, some may not. In the end, they didn’t detract from The Shallows overall appeal. I found the movie to be a decent “monster shark on the loose” film, and a welcome change from decades of bomb after bomb. It would be nice to see the “Curse of Bruce” finally broken, although I still believe the genre to be somewhat saturated. Still, with The Shallows “testing the waters” for the upcoming big-budget movie “Meg”, it’s just possible the upcoming Megalodon-run-amok movie may have a shot after all.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I give The Shallows a solid 7. Maybe even a 7.5. It’s a relatively short movie, but despite everything it faces as it attempts to deliver its “bite” (the shadow of “JAWS”, shark stereotypes, story predictability, and trying to breathe new life into a worn-out genre) it doesn’t come up short by any means. And, as the box office results showed, moviegoers felt the same way.
-Max
PS: I also liked the “toothy maw” visual that was done with the end credits.
