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.

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

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.

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.