Shark le mangeur d'homme

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.