Shark (1969) User Reviews (21)

A Fuller film that the director disowned, with an unusual ending for a Hollywood product

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 7 June 2021]

The film is an odd one for the Fuller filmography. First, it is supposed to be set in Sudan, when nothing in the film resembles Sudan or the Sudanese. Second, Fuller dissociated himself from the film after disagreeing with the producers on using the apparent footage of a stunt diver being killed during filing by a shark (covered by LIFE magazine, and later all evidence of the mishap being mysteriously removed from official records.) Fuller is credited as the director in the final film credits, though IMDb lists another co-director Rafael Portillo. Fuller found the final product to be considerably different from what he had shot. Third, the ending is superb--where the viewer has to figure out the inevitable end--very unusual for a Hollywood film. Fourth, this is a rare Fuller film, which uses a good established actress--the Mexican actress Silvia Pinal, who was chosen by Bunuel in three of his films "The Exterminating Angel," " Viridiana." and "Simon of the Desert." Fifth, actor Arthur Kennedy has an unusual role as a drunk doctor who has a degree from Johns Hopkins University and can still save an injured boy by operating on him in an open bar room with guests, while the doctor has imbibed a lot of liquor!

Fuller's pet theme of family persists. Here, an orphan waif, sleeping on the streets, is saved from possible deadly injuries by a father figure who doesn't even know the boy's real name.

definitely not one of Sam Fuller or Burt Reynolds' better days

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 24 August 2006]

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.

Very average Samuel Fuller adventure/thriller movie filled with underwater scenes , fights and violence

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 5 September 2016]

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 .

Bad Film, but not Fuller's fault

[merkaba_326 · 3/10 · 2 July 2005]

Contrary to the previous critic's statements, the end result of this film is not a reflection on Burt, the crew or the late great Samuel Fuller. This was a doomed project from the beginning. Fuller, recently returning from France, was all but blacklisted by American producers. His two previous films: Shock Corridor and Naked Kiss were too hard hitting and edgy for Hollywood producers. Almost completely broke, Fuller accepted an offer from two Mexican producers to adapt Victor Canning's 'Twist of the Knife'. Thus began "Caine", AKA "Maneater" AKA "Shark!", etc al. At the time, Burt Reynolds was only a television actor, with few if any real film credits. Silvia Pinal, who was great in Luis Bunuel's masterful, 'Viridiana' was terrific in Shark, as was Barry Sullivan as Mallare(who was also great in Fuller's, 'Forty Guns'). Ultimately, the Mexican producers/studio heads completely recut this film behind Fuller's back. Fuller denounced it, and with good reason. This film is bad, make no mistake. However, it was not Sam Fuller's fault, or Burt's, or Pinal, or Raul Martinez Solares, who provided the gritty, spooky cinematography for Shark. Shark is still enjoyable enough though. I would recommend Vodka or some aged Kentucky Bourbon as an accompaniment. Maybe some Bulleit on ice. Water-logged? I think not. This lil' stinker just requires a bit of booze and some willing cohorts.

Badly promoted that's all.

[Coventry · 5/10 · 14 July 2009]

Samuel Fuller was an acclaimed and highly respected director, so obviously when he himself thought one of his movies was pure rubbish; the public opinion got heavily influenced by that. Fuller completely disowned "Shark!", allegedly because the producers edited the finished product too heavily and used a tragic accident on the set as sensational promotion material, and hence it's widely regarded as a cinematic failure. Maybe if Fuller had stated that this was the personal favorite of his own repertoire, "Shark!" could have been a classic? In spite of its many, many shortcomings, this still remains an interesting film in my humble opinion. Fuller was right about one thing, though … "Shark!" is really badly promoted. The film falsely raises the impression this is an adventurous underwater thriller with non-stop man vs. shark battles and treasure hunting, but it really isn't. This is merely a story about typical human greed, double-crossing and swindling, imaginatively set in the noticeably hot and dusty North-Eastern hell of Sudan. Burt Reynolds, cool as always even though not performing at his best, plays a cynical gun smuggler gone astray after he lost a shipment of merchandise in a truck crash. He becomes involved with an acclaimed doctor and his blond muse in a little seaside town. The doc supposedly researches a groundbreaking medical breakthrough and dives for specific substance. In reality, however, they're diving for sunken treasures and literally everybody in the little town attempts to bamboozle each other. The titular shark – with exclamation mark – attacks exactly two times; in the very beginning, even long before the opening credits, and once more near the climax. It's a ridiculously small animal (the monster from Spielberg's "Jaws" would devour it in one single bite) and the shark footage is completely irrelevant to the plot, in fact. There's a nearly unforgivably large amount of boring sequences to struggle through and many of the sub plots are thoroughly uninteresting; like Reynolds' character Caine developing a supposedly touching friendship with a local Sudan street kid who smoke cigarillos like a pro. The photography and editing are effectively raunchy and the script contains some unexpectedly hilarious one-liners, for example "We'll be like one happy family… Happy sugar daddy, happy daughter and happy son-of-a-bitch!". The film is worth seeing for the downbeat character drawings and particularly to see how Fuller – undeniably a gifted director – conveys a very plausible atmosphere of greed, unbearable heat, selfishness and forlornness.

"Just getting up in the morning is a risk."

[raegan_butcher · 5/10 · 27 March 2010]

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.

Reynolds' character is more shark than the film

[Chase_Witherspoon · 5/10 · 29 April 2011]

Stranded American with dubious origins takes a job as a deckhand aboard the vessel of a marine biologist and his attractive assistant as a means to escape the Sudan. Amid all the fisticuffs and double-crossing, a few people are mauled by a rogue shark. Ostensibly a sunken treasure picture, this film was notorious at the time of its release after one of the stunt divers was fatally mauled by a supposedly sedated shark, but this notoriety doesn't warrant any serious speculation into the film itself, which lacks excitement.

Burt Reynolds as the gun-running Caine, while affable, isn't given the dialogue to make a memorable impression, while his supporting cast (some of distinction), also labour pointlessly with limited material. Mexican based actress Silvia Pinal is visually striking, but her characterisation is a muddled contradiction of sympathy and cruel indifference (that perhaps is not attributable to her interpretation, but the standard of the script).

The scenery is uninteresting, the minor players are obscure and hollow (with the exception of Runt, the cheeky, cigar smoking Mexican boy whom Caine befriends) and the sight and sound elements are amateurish. Director Fuller reportedly was so ambivalent about the movie, he distanced himself to the point of requesting his name be removed from the credits (which was declined). Despite this, Fuller's appreciation of film noir is evident in the characterisations, dialogue and staging, which at times, is strangely reminiscent of a film noir.

Though the title "Shark" bares some (scant) relevance to the plot, it's hardly a campaign of terror; three mangled corpses does not one shark movie make. Reynolds spends most of his time fighting, shaving and berating poor old Arthur Kennedy for being a hopeless drunk. In the end, everyone gets their comeuppance to varying degrees; some in the jaws of an unimpressive (in terms of threatening appearance, perhaps two metres at most) shark, others in more subtle fashion. Perhaps inspection of the novel on which this so-called film is based ("His Bones Are Coral" by Victor Canning) might glean some light on just why some distinguished film-makers elected to participate in such a mediocre picture.

Must Be Seen To Be Believed. But Don't!

[secragt · 2/10 · 4 May 2003]

Fuller really fails in this strangely flat boating drama. It probably has something to do with the really unattractive old crow who is supposed to seduce young Burt into her and her husband's hare-brained scheme to...well, it's all a little foggy, really. I guess they wanted Burt to do all the heavy lifting and to fend off the shark on their treasure hunt but seeing as there is nary a scene with a real maneater anywhere near Burt (all of the big Shark footage is painfully obvious unmatching stock material) you'll have to use your imagination. Arthur Kennedy is actually interesting...given the horrendous standards of everything else, he's probably the best thing in this soggy fish story.

One of the biggest mistakes of the story (perhaps necessitated by the non-existent budget) is that so much of the movie concerns the recruitment of Burt rather than the actual shark attack and undersea footage. Frankly, it's very boring to see all the lengthy and talky scenes in a bar and stunning to see it in the usually laconic and better-paced Fuller's work. Burt does have limited charm but somehow he's just wasted. Amazing to think that only three years later Reynolds would give the remarkably nuanced and charismatic performance of his life in the mind-blowing DELIVERANCE. He sure doesn't seem to have a clue here. There might be a certain level of camp value here but somehow even that doesn't quite come off. I guess I can't think of anyone I would recommend this to except for die-hard Burt fans. And are there any of those left after STRIPTEASE, etal? Skip this one and re-watch JAWS or THE NAKED KISS.

Mildly enjoying shark/adventure film

[tilapia · 7/10 · 5 September 2002]

Burt Reynolds (who never looked more homoerotic macho) plays an American criminal/gundealer in the middle east. After losing all his guns and money in a bust, he starts helping a beautiful blonde and her elderly sugardaddy dive for gold in the shark-filled waters of Sudan. What saves this pretty routine story is the "Fuller edge" put on the charcters: once again he is dealing with cynical, greedy anti-heroes, actually more complex than the lightweight story requires. Imagine a b-movie version of (the overrated) John Huston movie "Treasure of Sierra Madre" set in Sudan and with a bunch of hungry sharks thrown in for good measure, and you got a pretty good idea of what to expect. Also, it's interesting to see a pre-Jaws (pre-Jaws clone, pre-lousy italian Jaws clone, pre-computer animated Jaws clone...) shark-movie. It makes you realise just how groundbreaking Spielberg's movie actually was.

Conclusion: Director Samuel Fuller has made both worse and far better movies than this. If you're a fan of his, or simply want a REAL film in these days of plastic moviemaking, by all means check this out. You probably won't end up loving it, but you'll probably agree it's a perfectly acceptable way to spend 90 minutes of your life. Give it a try.

6.5/10

Is it over yet?

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 14 February 2012]

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.

Burt Reynolds goes to war (or something)

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 19 February 2007]

I've read some about Sam Fuller, and I derive that he is best known for directing movies about WWII. However, "Shark!" is the first of his movies that I've seen. Contrary to what the title may imply, it is not really about people battling an elongate elasmobranch - although there are some such scenes in the movie - but rather an incomprehensible story of smuggling in a small Sudanese town with lost treasure off the coast. Burt Reynolds plays his usual macho role as the man caught in the middle of the imbroglio.

Does the movie make any sense? No, not really. It seems like the sort of movie where they had several different people writing the script, and none of them knew what the others were writing. It may be a pretty stupid movie, but believe me it's cool! Not only because of Reynolds's modus operandi, but because Silvia Pinal is REALLY hot! In fact, there's a "From Here to Eternity" moment (at least that's what I would call it). Why didn't they show her wearing less?! Anyway, it's basically a terrible movie, but pretty neat. Worth seeing as a historical reference

Dumb and Fun

[kinojunkie · 6/10 · 27 July 2005]

The majority of this Fuller film takes place in a little Sudanese village where Burt Reynolds can't seem to leave because of a little arms smuggling incident. He plays his usual tough guy role which is amplified ten times because this IS a Sam Fuller film. It all concerns a rather ridiculous plot involving sunken treasure in shark infested waters. What actually hat makes up 90% of this film is just a lot of macho, stupid and funny moments revolving around theft, fighting, drinking and romancing in a foreign land. Man Eater a.k.a. Shark! is an entertainingly mindless piece of celluloid that will probably go down better with a few drinks and some friends who can appreciate the trashier things in life.

Shark in small letters

[wintertwister · 1/10 · 22 December 2004]

Not much to this movie. Not really about sharks. Was re-released in the mid 70s during the Jaws craze. The shark attacks are at the end of the movie. They should throw this movie to the sharks. Is a very early Burt Reynold's movie but he lacked the panache which he demonstrated in later movies. In fact this movie lacks anything of interest. The acting is flat, the story line is weak and the shark action is sparse. The big shark scene is looks fake even though real sharks were used. The photography fails to draw the viewer into the drama partially because the filming was far away from the action. It also fails because the sharks seem incidental--they just happened to be there with no build up of excitement to the scene. Tragically, some poor soul died making this movie so if you watch it, watch it for his sake. If you like bad movies try this. Try Deliverance instead if you want to see Burt Reynolds.

Lethargic star vehicle with only a few shark attack bits

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 17 December 2016]

A diver is killed, and a marine biologist and his female assistant require someone to take on the dangerous task. Literally exploding into the country, Burt Reynolds soon causes a stir in the local town with his petty thievery and obnoxious ways. He quickly forms a relationship with a young boy, Runt, and the inhabitants of a seedy hotel (a drunken doctor, a mad Arab, and "Fatso" the owner). Soon Reynolds is joining the fishing crew, but trouble comes in the form of a corrupt policeman and double-crossing between friends.

Okay, I didn't know what to make of this. The packaging intrigued me. First of all it looked like a JAWS rip-off, but I soon found it was made before JAWS. There was also a ridiculous note that the film was dedicated to injured stuntmen - a marketing ploy if ever I saw one. And then there was Burt Reynolds. Trust me, Burt is the one thing which redeems this film and stops it becoming an unwatchable mess. Because Burt is THE king of cool. Whether he's fighting off greasy thugs or cracking wise-ass jokes, Burt sure knows his stuff.

The rest of the plot is inconsequential really. There's a heck of a lot of character building. The shark of the title is seen swimming around and eats a couple of people, but that's about it. The main plot is about Burt and his relationships in the town. There's little in the way of suspense, but quite a lot of action fighting scenes. Arthur Kennedy also appears. I don't know why this film had a 15 certificate, as the only gory bit of it was when someone was getting attacked by a shark and a load of what looked like red paint was coming off him. The young boy was pretty endearing though. If you're anything of a Burt Reynolds fan, then this film is for you. I wasn't a fan before I saw his performance, but my opinion is definitely changed now I have.

Wow! This was really in theaters?

[kyletrail · 4 October 2004]

A friend of mine gave me this as a joke when he moved from the midwest and I have to tell you it is the worst film in the history of film-making. Note Burt's beard in the chase scene early on in the desert. Also, check out the bazaar chase scene when the kid steals his watch. Did you really need to crash into that table?

Anyway, if you love bad movies then this one is for you. That's how we came across it actually. We used to have a bad movie night once a week. This won hands down. As a matter of fact, we stopped doing it after this one. Nothing could ever compare.

Sometimes I intentionally watch a bad film or two to purge my system in preparation for a good one. Well, this is like the Ex-Lax of films for this type of activity.

Bad, Bad, Bad,

[garyldibert · 1/10 · 28 January 2008]

Bad Bad Bad! This picture opened in theaters October 8 1969 Starring Burt Reynolds as Caine. Caine is overseas running guns for foreign countries. He's stop by three guys dressed as cops and they go through the cargo that he has on the back of his truck. After the first look, Caine starts to leave when the three men decide to look again. While going deeper into the cargo the discover the guns that Caine is hauling. While running from the three men Caine looses his brakes and the truck goes over the side of the mountain. Now Caine not only has to find away into the nearest town he also needs to find another way to make money. Now a few thoughts on the movie itself. This was a bad bad picture to the point where I turned it off 15 minute into it. The movie has no leading lady in it and the well known star was Burt Reynolds. This was not only I a waste of Reynolds talent, this movie should've never been shown in public. I give this movie 1 weasel star only because there's no other number to use lower then 1.

Couldn't wait for the fin-ish.

[mark.waltz · 3/10 · 30 April 2021]

The adventure was boring. The shark is nothing more than a cameo. The leading lady was as dull as creek water. The kid wasn't cute. And Burt just seems to be walking through this exotic adventure that seems to be a rip off of Ernest Hemingway's "To Have and Have Not" which had already been remade twice. When the only amusing moment has Burt harassing a sleazy flop house proprietor for his weight, you know that the film is in trouble.

Silvia Pinal has no screen presence as the apparent mistress of Barry Sullivan who uses gun runner Reynolds to dive to a sunken ship to retrieve the treasure, warning him that sharks surround the area, but macho Burt doesn't care. The little con-artist kid is a complete pest, but Burt utilizes him anyway even after he's stolen from him.

Then there is veteran character actor Arthur Kennedy, one of the most respected talents of the 1940's and 50's, a multiple Oscar nominee, reduced to a cameo playing a pathetic drunk. This was filmed in a very cheap looking color which reveals it to be a low B, and that's pretty surprising coming from Sam Fuller who really had made some complex films during the golden age that were really groundbreaking. A mega disappointment.

Not A Good Movie, But Not The Fault Of Burt Or Fuller

[slightlymad22 · 6/10 · 7 January 2015]

First off this movie is not really about sharks. The only thing accurate about my DVD is that it features Burt Reynolds in a lead role.

Plot In A Paragraph: Burt Reynolds plays Caine, a gunrunner who becomes stranded in a small port in the Red Sea. He meets a woman who propositions him to dive into shark- infested waters off the coast for scientific research. However, Caine realises the woman and her partner are actually treasure hunters, and at not to be trusted.

During production in Mexico in 1967, one of the film's stuntmen was attacked and killed on camera by a shark that was supposed to have been sedated. When the production company used the death to promote the film, (even retitling the film from "Caine" after Reynolds character to "Shark!") Fuller, who had been arguing with the producers on several major issues relating to the film, quit the production.

When Samuel Fuller finally saw the version that was released to theaters, he said it was so badly butchered he demanded the producers take his name off it. The producers refused.

It is what it is

[cyril-815-290166 · 10/10 · 11 April 2021]

Most of the facts about this movie have already been addressed.

What hasn't: Burt Reynolds proves himself for more roles in Hollywood with a great performance of a down on his luck Expat American traveling the world on a dime. He is macho, cool, tough, romantic, comic, touching with his relationship with a young homeless kid, etc. He checks all the boxes and would use his talent to become one of the biggest stars of the 70's 80's.

Fuller had something here and I only wish we could see what the producers cut.

This is a B movie and you may even fall asleep but it takes you back to a time when movies weren't just about super heroes flying through the air and everyone doing the right thing - boring -- Sudan, Sharks, Treasure!

If someone were to ask: "I never saw a Burt Reynolds movie what should it be?" - I would show them this first so they can see his raw talent in a rugged low budget late night flick.

Did Fuller Really Direct This Thing?

[Michael_Elliott · 8 September 2018]

Shark (1969)

** (out of 4)

Caine (Burt Reynolds) is a gun smuggler who loses an entire load in a small country. Without much else to do, he accepts a job from Anna (Silvia Pinal) who wants him to help her husband (Barry Sullivan) get a treasure at the bottom of the ocean. The only problem is that there are a lot of sharks they have to go through.

Was this film really directed by the great Samuel Fuller? That was the first thought that went through my mind as I was watching this picture because SHARK is pretty much a low-budget B movie that doesn't feature any of the style that you'd expect from someone like Fuller. I must admit that I was really shocked to see how poorly made the film was but not all of the blame should be pointed at Fuller since the screenplay isn't all that good either.

The biggest problem with the story is that it spends way too much time trying to recruit the Reynolds character. You've got a decent idea for a story (treasure/sharks) but very little is done with it, which is too bad. There are way too many scenes where the three characters are sitting around talking about whether or not Reynolds should do the job and after a while you just want to scream for them to get into the ocean.

The scenes in the ocean are quite good and the shark footage is fun as well. The film certainly comes to life whenever the shark scenes are being played out and it's just too bad that more focus wasn't on the treasure. Reynolds was okay in his role here but he clearly hadn't found his way in front of the camera yet. I thought Sullivan made for a good bad guy. Arthur Kennedy was good as well. The screen strealer is without question Silvia Pinal who is quite good and sexy in her role.

SHARK is a minor movie that isn't awful but at the same time considering the director you can't help but see it as a disappointment.