“Chum” follows a wedding party who must fight for survival after bloodthirsty shark attacks and a sinister fisherman turn a dream destination celebration into a deadly trap.
Prior to the title card appearing at the 5-minute mark, “Chum” presents an uninteresting opening. Rather than diving into the story, it lets viewers know… what the ocean looks like. Outside of generic wide-angle sea views, the film also contains narration. Jim Klock (Roy) is immediately set up for failure, forced to deliver exposition about the power of the sea, which comes across as monotone rather than frightening. This is wrapped up in endless fade transitions and sharp cuts. The short introduction alone is likely to turn many viewers away, not playing into typical “shark movie” energy at all.
Unfortunately, once the actual narrative begins, this doesn’t really stop. While it occasionally pauses for “plot,” large chunks of the movie end up feeling like a music video. Music plays, it intermittently cuts out for brief character conversations, before continuing again — accompanied by more oceanic segue shots. Nobody comes to this subgenre for plot, but here, it’s completely nonexistent. When it does get wrapped up in the complicated relationship between Tom and Tina, it’s just confusing.
That’s not all director Jonathan Zuck does to bloat the runtime, however. There is also an abundance of unnecessary slow motion utilized in “Chum.” Even with a short 87-minute length, it still feels like almost a third of the film is pure nothingness.
If you forgot the synopsis already, here’s your reminder that this isn’t just a shark movie; there’s also a “sinister fisherman.” Only a year after its release, “Chum” attempts to be another “Dangerous Animals.” Only, it doesn’t reveal this fact until about the midway point. If you’re looking for any rhyme or reason behind this development, there isn’t one. Except… that the killer could be a member of “The Strangers” cast.
“What did we do? Why us? // Because you’re here.”
“Chum” also suffers from many shortcomings on a technical level. This includes rampant automated dialogue replacement, choppy editing and poor CGI. While some ADR isn’t an issue, it’s poorly synced and visually distracting here. Not only does a lot of the audio not match the characters’ mouth movements, but the difference is audibly present as well. Shifting between stock footage, visual effects and reality, scenes often become jumbled. This not only includes basic conversations, but also, more importantly, the shark attacks. Shark movies can usually be forgiven for subpar effects; this one’s different. Because not only are the attacks themselves poorly executed, but so are ordinary background replacements and lighting matches.
There is an additional problem, as “Chum” seemingly used the big bad (artificial intelligence) to complete its post-production effects. As each new shark attack arrives, it grows glaringly obvious with continuity errors and strange texture changes. Had more attention to detail been placed, this could’ve been passable for a low-budget thriller. With the subpar and inconsistent final look, however, it comes across as lazy.
Out of the cast, Alice Eve (Tina) is the standout. She feels like the only actor who actually knew she was in a shark movie. When talking, she shows fear and desperation through her words and mannerisms. Everyone else? This seems like it’s just another day out on the water for them.
As with any creature feature, there are some laughs to be had at least. Though, more often than not, they may be at the film’s expense.
“Authorities surmise the remains of the victims have likely been eaten.”
Everything about “Chum” feels fabricated, including the story, characters and visuals themselves. It’s a shark movie without the thrills or the fun.
Rating: 1 out of 5
