Jonathan Zuck’s “Chum” follows a group of people in the middle of an ocean, fighting for their lives after a lethal shark attack destroys their boat. Their only hope for survival seems to be a stranger who offers them a place on his boat. They trust him, but things take a swift turn as soon as they realize who they are up against. In this case, the danger isn’t just the animals deep underwater.
If it all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Just last year, Sean Byrne’s “Dangerous Animals” followed a premise eerily similar to what Zuck attempts here. Byrne built that central plot line into something genuinely compelling, unlike Zuck, who used it to make a largely unbearable and tonally incoherent film. Unlike Byrne, Zuck brings some new themes to the table, but fails to make a convincing argument for their existence in the script.
The central characters in Zuck’s film are a newlywed couple who are unhappy in their relationship. They still go ahead with their destination wedding on a Mediterranean isle and put on happy faces despite their mind telling them otherwise. So, even their wedding party feels like a contractual obligation to them. Their friends and family who join them seem to have no clue they aren’t on good terms. That forces them to keep up the facade and join their friends on an excursion.
Alice Eve and Eric Michael Cole star as the central couple getting married, while Sarah Siadat, Elle Haymond, Johnny Gaffney, and Lisa Yaro play their archetypal friends and acquaintances joining them on the trip. Siadat’s character seems like the bride’s closest friend, while Haymond’s character becomes a younger woman constantly at odds with her. Yaro’s character doesn’t have any recognizable traits besides her love for the riches, and thus, becomes a reductive caricature.
It’s not just her. None of the characters is complex, even Cole’s. Despite being the central groom/husband in this equation, he remains surprisingly forgettable. That’s mainly because we see him only through the lens of his contentious professional decisions that led to a rift between him and Eve’s character. We barely get a sense of who he is as a person to realize his impact on Eve’s character’s life.
Jim Klock becomes the last addition to the cast as a rugged, solitary fisherman who rescues them from their life raft. Shortly after his introduction, it becomes clear that it’s just a placeholder character for Jai Courtney’s Tucker (in “Dangerous Animals”), who becomes a bigger threat to the clueless travellers than the sharks. If that seems like a spoiler, then you should check out Chum’s trailer. It lays out almost every central plot point, leaving you with no sense of discovery while watching the movie. Inside that skeleton, there’s nothing remarkable.
Going back to the ‘additional themes’ mentioned before, the film tries to explore issues of marital discontent and climate crisis, while trying to tie them to its central premise about sharks. In doing so, it becomes an embarrassing attempt to elevate itself to a higher status. Eve does the most heavy-lifting in the cast, being the most memorable part of the film, besides Klock, who plays her key adversary. Even then, her attempts to show her character’s climate-conscious nature and connect it to the reasons behind a shark attack are unconvincing. Most of the blame for this falls on the lackluster screenplay.
The script never develops any of its themes enough to make its critical beats dramatically satisfying. As a viewer, you can’t help but start questioning: Why am I being told about a climate crisis all of a sudden by these people? How is it relevant to this middle-aged man trying to kill a bunch of seemingly innocent travellers? And why is that man suddenly getting angry at them for being ‘rich people’? When was it established that he isn’t as privileged? Regardless, with that line, is the film trying to be a riff on “Triangle of Sadness”? Who knows!
See, the issues of climate crisis and wealth disparity are clearly relevant in the real world, and a call for introspection and action in that regard is otherwise admirable. But it makes no sense to force-fit those issues into a film that’s more suitable to offer some cheap thrills. That leads me to another question: Why couldn’t “Chum” simply stick to being a shark-attack film?
Again, going back to “Dangerous Animals,” it works as a fine survival thriller because it doesn’t try to be anything more. It introduces themes of social disconnect and parental issues to tie its prey and predators, but never dilutes its comical wickedness or its dramatic intensity for their sake. While it may not be a masterpiece and the title may be a little on the nose, it still delivers what it’s supposed to. “Chum” could have achieved the same. Instead, it becomes a dull rendition of shark horror projects and comes nowhere near the classics like “Jaws.”
If the script had some flaws, at least the filmmaking could have made it a moderately satisfying string of thrills. Even that is not up to the mark in this movie, which offers a Lifetime-style, uninspired cinematic pastiche of projects that have explored the same themes, but far better. Some of Chum’s shots look like they are taken out of a typical vlog-style footage from the 2010s, reminiscent of that outdated visual style employed by the Chainsmokers’ Closer music video. The conversations also appear badly edited, leading to some jarring transitions. Most of it feels simply like footage without any intention.
The only saving grace might be Eve, who does her best to elevate the stakes and give her character a sense of personhood that the script doesn’t offer. Yet, that barely helps. That’s unfortunate because she has been far better in far more memorable projects. I remember her work in “Starter for 10,” where she managed to make even her typical male-fantasy character seem genuinely human and lifelike. None of that applies to “Chum,” which is utterly lifeless and thrill-less.
![Our Souls at Night [2017] – An Enjoyable Low-Key Drama about Elderly Bed-mates](https://www.highonfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cover-768x432.jpg)