Watch Shark For Free

Such a frustrating disappointment

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Let's be realistic.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This is a violent adventure movie that earned notoriety because of on location tragedy , as a stunt diver was really killed by a shark . It is a typical Reynoldsian action-infested dumbness with plenty of thrills , brawls and violent confrontations . It deals with an American gun smuggler (Burt Reynolds) stranded in a tiny port and near a small coastal Sudanese town . He's stuck there when a woman (Silvia Pinal) hires him to a dangerous mission , as he sees a chance to compensate for his losses . He's not the only one and he soon uncovers the boat's owner (Barry Sullivan) and his colleague are attempting to retrieve gold bullion that lies deep in shark-infested waters .In making this underwater adventure yarn a stuntman , an experimented diver , was killed by a shark . Freak weather conditions drove hundreds of huge fish down the California coast into the Mexican eaters where director and actors were shooting . Like ¨Twilight Zone : The movie¨ by John Landis , in which died Vic Morrow at a helicopter crash , here was dead a stuntman called José Marco . Notorious underwater explorer Jacques Costeau commented that despite its cruelty , he had never before known a white killer shark attack a man in so vicious a manner which was little consolation for the relatives of the stuntman . Two-fisted and tough acting by Burt Reynolds as a gunrunner loses his cargo and carries out a risked raid a sunken ship in the shark-infested waters . The film benefits itself from a nice support cast , such as Silvia Pinal , Barry Sullivan , the Mexican Enrique Lucero and Arthur Kennedy as a drunk doctor . It contains an anti-climatic and inappropriate musical score . The movie displays a colorful cinematography by Raúl Martínez Solares considered to be one of the best Mexican cameramen , including titles as "The River and Death", "Illusion Travels by Streetcar¨ by Buñuel and "Santo vs. the Riders of Terror" , ¨Santo vs. Blue Moon¨ , ¨Santa Claus¨ and many others . The motion picture was badly made by Samuel Fuller and edited without his consent , who disowned it . Fuller being especially known as filmmaker of such exploitation films as ¨Shock corridor¨ and ¨The naked kiss¨ where he proved his talent of vision and intelligence . Fuller made various Westerns as ¨I shot Jesse James(49)¨, ¨The baron of Arizona (50)¨, ¨Run of the arrow¨ (56) , ¨Forty guns(58)¨, and ¨The meanest men in the West (76)¨ , but his most fluid and strongest work lies in his war films as ¨Steel helmet (51)¨ , ¨Fixed bayonets (52)¨, ¨Hell and high water (55)¨, ¨China gate (57)¨ , ¨Merrill's Marauders (62)¨ and ¨The Big Red One (80)¨. Being his best films : ¨Pick up on South Street¨(53) , ¨Underworld Usa¨(60) and ¨White Dog¨(82) . Rating Shark ¡: the film is itself below average .

Considering this film's pedigree, it wasn't surprising that it wasn't very good. Despite having the very famous and economical Sam Fuller directing the film, he and the producers had a falling out and they finished and edited it without him. Naturally, Fuller was irritated with having his name on the film--and it's clearly not among his best work. But, what from this movie IS his and what isn't? The film is about a rich jerk (Barry Sullivan) who wants to excavate a treasure using scuba equipment. The problem is, that it's in a shark-infested area and it's VERY risky. So, he gets the assistance of the very macho gun-runner (Burt Reynolds) by not telling him the full extent of the danger. Despite being an undersea film, the scuba shots really aren't very good and the film is muddy and cheap looking. While the three male leads (Burt Reyholds, Sullivan and Arthur Kenedy) are decent, none of the three have much personality--at least not enough to make the plot more interesting. All in all, a rather listless film that had me wondering repeatedly 'is it over yet?!'. Not worth your time unless you are a Sam Fuller completist--even then, you may want to skip this one.

Based on a novel (which I've read) by Victor Canning. Mexico stands in for a squalid town in the Sudan where a group of seedy characters are stranded. Barry Sullivan is the grumpy honcho with the shady moves. A fortune in submerged gold in a shipwreck in shark-infested waters is the prize. Burt Reynolds, channeling the Wages of Fear, has reason to sweat: he has to carry a long and boring sub-plot concerning his "relationship" with a scroungy little street kid until the main plot kicks in. Arthur Kennedy(I think he was supposed to be an Arab. He's wearing a fez, anyway) shamelessly hams it up as the town drunk.Sure, Burt Reynolds is trapped in the dead-end of the Sudan, yet shirtless in some tight white pants he comes across as cocky as his chest is hairy.Sam Fuller's hard-boiled sensibilities surface in the existential dialog: "Just getting up in the morning is a risk." The main trouble with the film, aside from the horrendous post-production hack-job performed upon it by the clueless producers, is the dull and draggy pace. With a few judicious trims and without the wholesale chop chop this could be a much better film. Also the old source print is so dark at times it is impossible to tell what is happening. As it stands it is a curiosity, worth watching at least once, but nothing more.

It being said that Shark is far from being what co-writer/director Samuel Fuller envisioned is right on the money. Or rather, lacking money, because this film seems to have been made with change that fell from the pockets of the producers. It's another film that looks and feels like it was made with the grit and gusto of a man with a need to tell a story, but unfortunately it's quite compromised. On the DVD- not too unfitting released by Troma- the special features go to lengths to explain what became of the film once it was completed, and taken out of Fuller's hands to even include (at the START of the film) a real lethal shark attack. That the film, ironically, is not the total disaster that Fuller thought it was once he saw what the producers did, is a credit to him and first-time movie star Burt Reynolds.Now, as long as you're not a stickler for little things like, say, continuity (check out that beard, or how it withers scene to scene, for example), the film isn't a total waste. For one thing it still carries the memorably tough wit of some of Fuller's noir films of the 50s, and he still makes his mark on the film in spurts, as one can tell through its fractured, ultra low-budget qualities (i.e. made in Mexico with a shamble for Sudanese sets, if that's what they are). He also gets a little cool gusto out of Reynolds, who would later bloom, so to speak, as a major star in his own right. Here, however, he's still finding his feet some of the time, so it goes without saying that it's more machismo and presence than real 'acting' up on screen. He plays Caine, a mercenary gun seller with a predilection for wacky danger (i.e. tossing dynamite out of his car to thwart those on his tail at the start). He gets recruited by a tempting female who offers him a chance to dig up gold in a sunken ship...all in shark infested waters! When these scenes do finally come up after a lot of plot line subterfuge, it's hit or miss.Then again, this is long before Jaws, so if the temptation to hear a really rousing score over the underwater scenes does strike you, it speaks to not just that film's strengths but how Shark! doesn't quite realize all of its potential. It wouldn't be 100% fair to blame just the producers for the bits of fiasco, because even through what is quite good that Fuller pulls off on screen (I liked the small chase in the village with the boy and the watch, and a few of the more blatantly exciting moments with Reynolds in his underwater garb), he doesn't have that much of a really terrific story to work with to start with. Maybe it's a combination of factors, but that it's Sam Fuller's weakest movie I've seen of his films is both a credit to what he could do with what could possibly have been a real Z-grade stinker and a tome to what he couldn't do with un-supportive, conniving producers. Probably worth a good, dumb time for drinking buddies, however.