slightlymad22 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.

Chase_Witherspoon 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.

Raegan Butcher 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.

wintertwister 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.