Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Glatpoti It is so daring, it is so ambitious, it is so thrilling and weird and pointed and powerful. I never knew where it was going.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

JohnHowardReid Edward G. Robinson (Mike), Richard Arlen (Pipes Boley), Zita Johann (Quita Silva), Vince Barnett (Fishbone), William Ricciardi (Manuel Silva), J. Carroll Naish (Tony), Leila Bennett (Muggsey), Maurice Black (Fernandez), Sheila Bromley (Red), Edwin Maxwell (doctor), Toshia Mori (lady barber), Henry Otho, Harry Semels, Pedro Regas, Hector Sarno (crewmen), Inez Palange (Mike's neighbor). Director: HOWARD HAWKS. Screenplay: Wells Root. Based on the story, "Tuna", by Houston Branch. Photography: Tony Gaudio. Film editor: Thomas Pratt. Art director: Jack Okey. Costumes designed by Orry- Kelly. Music: Bernhard Kaun. Music director: Leo F. Forbstein, conducting The Vitaphone Orchestra. Marine supervisor: Captain Guy Silva. Stills: Mac Julian. Assistant cameraman: Carl E. Guthrie. Assistant director: Richard Rosson. Sound recording: C.A. Riggs and A.D. Mair. Associate producer: Bryan Foy. Copyright 3 September 1932 by First National Pictures, Inc. Released through Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Winter Garden: 22 September 1932. U.K. release: 4 March 1933. 8 reels. 77 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A triangle love story between the boastful skipper of a tuna boat, the daughter of a deceased crewman, and a sailor whom the skipper has rescued from the sea at the cost of his left hand. COMMENT: Here's Edward G. Robinson hamming it up for all he's worth in this awful fishing yarn which is not only a waste of time, but unduly gruesome and cruel to boot. I beg pardon. There is one redeeming feature. Her name is Zita Johann, the exotic heroine of one of my favorite cult films, The Mummy (1932). In fact, The Mummy was Miss Johann's very next movie, but what a contrast to her role in this time-wasting tosh. True, she does what she can with this poorly-written cliché of a role, but she'so hemmed in by loud-talking Robinson, nondescript Arlen and unfunny funnyman Barnett, she's given little chance to make any but the most superficial impression. Hawks's disinterested direction doesn't help. At times, he even forgets the story entirely and turns the movie into a boring (and often hideous) documentary about tuna fishing. As for Robinson, this is undoubtedly his worst performance ever. His constant attempts at a funny accent are never less than appalling.I repeat: If it were not for Zita Johann, this movie would be qualified for instant dismissal in the nearest trash bin.

marcslope How many times has this plot been used? The older guy--hearty, well-liked, a good man--wins the pretty young thing, but she's attracted to his best friend. It's like "They Knew What They Wanted," with Edward G. Robinson changing Charles Laughton's Italian accent to Portuguese and becoming an ace fisherman instead of a vintner. He's wonderful, in a showy yet subtle performance, and the beautiful Zita Johann is a prize worth fighting for. The writing isn't wonderful, though--we never understand why this lying blowhard is so popular, and the third side of the triangle, Richard Arlen, is given no personality at all. Howard Hawks must have liked the maritime setting, or just being on a boat, because there are yards of irrelevant footage of tuna fishing, leading to a climax that's not very clearly edited (just how does Arlen get out of this, and why does Eddie G. do such a turnaround?). But it leads to a moving big finale. It's atmospheric, with lots of outdoors shooting that makes it seem less studio-bound, and Robinson is always worth watching.

bkoganbing Edward G. Robinson plays a one handed fisherman making his living on the California coast. Even with a hook for a left hand he does pretty good in his line of work. But that steel hook isn't exactly quail bait.One of his crew is lost to the sharks during a voyage and he brings the news home to his daughter Zita Johann. She's back home after having run away from the fishing life and has had a pretty rough go of it.Though she doesn't love him, Johann marries Robinson and then another Robinson's crew, Richard Arlen comes in to complicate things.Other reviewers have mentioned the gazillion times Warner Brothers recycled the plot of Tiger Shark in other locales. But actually Robinson had done a version of They Knew What They Wanted back in 1930 entitled A Lady to Love. That's the real origin of this plot.The fishing boat scenes are realistically handled and the principal players do a good job. But this story has been told better and told better by Mr. Robinson himself.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre All the old-time Hollywood studios recycled their scripts, turning previously-filmed properties into remakes and then re-remakes. More so than any other studio, Warner Brothers were notorious for re-re-re-remaking their previous films with only very slight changes in setting and dialogue. "Tiger Shark" is an historically significant film, as this movie provided the original template for a plot line which Warners recycled about two dozen times ... each time with just enough changes to fool the audience into thinking they were seeing an original plot. Except for stories which are in the public domain (such as Cinderella), "Tiger Shark" holds the all-time record for being re-made MORE OFTEN than any other movie ... each remake being "disguised" as a new movie.The basic plot is this: an older man with a physical handicap falls in love with an attractive young woman who owes him a favour. She marries him, more out of a sense of obligation than for love. Then she becomes attracted to a handsome young man who works alongside her handicapped husband. The young man returns her attraction, and they start having an affair. The husband discovers his wife's infidelity, and then (in the climax of the film) he and the younger man duke it out. That's the plot of "Tiger Shark", starring Edward G. Robinson, and it's also the plot of two dozen other Warners films which are uncredited remakes of "Tiger Shark".Compare this film to "Manpower" (1941), also starring Robinson. In "Tiger Shark" he plays a one-handed fisherman, with a hook at the end of his left arm. In "Manpower" he plays an electrical lineman with a limp. In both films, his love interest is a younger woman with a European accent: Zita Johann here, Marlene Dietrich in "Manpower". Robinson's younger rival in "Tiger Shark" (played by Richard Arlen) is basically the same character as Robinson's rival in "Manpower" (George Raft). The climax of "Tiger Shark" is a fight on the seashore; the climax of "Manpower" is a fistfight at the top of a telephone pole during a lightning storm. Once you allow for the change of setting, they're both the same film. I could make the same connections between "Tiger Shark" and about two dozen other Warners films, not all of them starring Robinson."Tiger Shark" benefits from some excellent direction by Howard Hawks. Richard Arlen is unfairly forgotten nowadays, but he was the closest thing Hollywood had to Harrison Ford before Harrison Ford came along. (I'm referring of course to the modern Harrison Ford, not the silent-film actor of the same name.) Arlen gives a good performance here. Zita Johann is excellent here, hampered only by her thick accent. She retired early from films to marry the producer John Houseman, long before Houseman became an Oscar-winning actor. Johann's most famous role is the female lead in "The Mummy" opposite Boris Karloff. When Johann published her autobiography in the 1980s, the publishers' promo material played up the fact that Johann had co-starred with Karloff, but they managed to avoid mentioning *which* Karloff film she'd been in: apparently they were afraid we would think that Zita Johann was a "scream queen" actress who only starred in horror films.I'll rate "Tiger Shark" 7 out of 10 on its own merits, or 9 points if you're an aspiring screenwriter who wants to study this film so you can learn how a single plot line can be reworked repeatedly.