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.
** (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.