Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 12 May 1952 by Warner Bros Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Warner: 23 April 1952. U.S. release: 3 May 1952. U.K. release (in a 91-minute version): 11 August 1952. Australian release: 8 January 1953. Sydney opening at the Park (ran 2 weeks). 98 minutes. SYNOPSIS: A deep-sea diver, engaged in salvage operations in the Philippines, is the only person who knows the exact location of a sunken treasure. NOTES: Despite the hic-cup of Captain Fabian, Flynn's next movie, Mara Maru, did quite good business in Australia. Locations in Los Angeles and Newport Harbors, Catalina Island and San Fernando Mission (doubling for a Manilla cathedral).COMMENT: The trouble with Mara Maru is not so much its plot - or even its less than lavish budget - but its dialogue. Talk, talk, talk. True, Douglas and Burks do their best. The picture is always most attractively atmospheric to look at, even at its dullest and most garrulous. Yes, there's a bit of action certainly, but not enough. Too much aural padding, not enough real tension. Not enough conflict and roundness in the characters either, despite marvellous efforts by sterling players, particularly Burr (one of our favorite villains), to give them life. A special hand-clap for Michael Ross as Big China. Flynn himself is adequate enough. His fights are staged with convincing doubles. Miss Roman makes for okay decoration, but strikes few sparks. Mara Maru is one of Douglas's most fluent films. The photography, as stated, is remarkably skillful too, giving the sets an obvious luster that in less talented hands they wouldn't have. Editing is smooth, though judicious trimming would not go amiss. A pity to see so much craftsmanship wasted on such an empty script. The plot has promise but the end result is neither sufficiently witty nor dry. And what's worse, it takes far too long to make its points. OTHER VIEWS: Despite some underwater scenes with obviously double-exposed, transparent fish and seemingly endless close-ups of Flynn in his diving helmet, this is an action-full melodrama with good performances and solid direction (Gordon Douglas). N. Richard Nash's screenplay does not treat Miss Roman too kindly as most of her dialogue is pretty dull. She is better served by photographer Robert Burks. Max Steiner's music score is one of his most pedestrian. - JHR writing as Charles Freeman.

calvinnme Sometimes I like a film and I'll even have a hard time really being able to explain why.One example is this 1952 programmer from Warner Brothers. It was clearly a come down for star Errol Flynn who was being shoved off by the studio into a bit of a cheapie black and white production as a fulfillment of their contract with him. It would be, in fact, Flynn's last studio made film on his Warners contract.While there are no particular surprises in the story line of this tale about sunken treasure, it is smoothly and efficiently directed by Gordon Douglas, who seemed to get saddled with a lot of the films with lesser scripts. Make it work, Gordon, they seemed to say and he did. The Curtiz and Walsh rejects seemed to go to Douglas.Ruth Roman is Errol's leading lady this time out. No real sparks between them. Raymond Burr in his early heavy days (heavy as in villain, as well as weight) is the two faced opponent whose duplicity is pretty obvious right from his first appearance in the film.Flynn goes through the motions in his role for the most part but even when Errol isn't really trying, his understated performances still tend to satisfy me. Then, suddenly as the film approaches the end, Flynn starts to do some real acting. It happens in a scene in which he angrily slaps his Filipino assistant across the face and then shows remorse for his behaviour. It reminded me once again of what a good actor he could be when he put his mind to it. Recommended for watching talent in front of and behind the camera wrestle with and prevail with a so-so story.

vincentlynch-moonoi Yes, Errol Flynn looks more than his 43 years here...but not that much more...more like 48. So I don't buy all those comments that he had turned into an old man. He still had about 7 years more of making films in him before his early death at age 50.What is noticeable is how his star had fallen. It's not that this is a bad picture. In fact, it's a pretty decent mystery-adventure film. But, it's a far cry from the glory days of "The Adventures Of Robin Hood" and "That Forsythe Woman", and Ruth Roman was no Olivia de Havilland or Greer Garson.Nevertheless, the main cast does rather nicely. Here, Errol Flynn looks like the kind of man who might have stayed in the Philippines after the war, lived a tough life, and ended up deep sea diving. And the diction -- always one of his strong points -- remained. Ruth Roman, though a B picture actress, was a good B picture actress, and does very well here as the wife of Flynn's partner. Raymond Burr always did nicely as a heavy (no pun intended), and does nicely here; he really was quite good. And Paul Picerni as a PI, adds a nice touch.The plot is pretty straight-forward. There's a treasure to be had (dating from WWII) and the men who are after it are not to be trusted. When Flynn's partner (one of two men who knew the location of a diamond treasure) is murdered, it falls to Flynn to work his way through the intrigue to find the treasure and the murderer. There are enough twists and surprises to keep you involved, and I very much enjoyed this pic. Recommended

lorenellroy Errol Flynn plays "Mason" co-owner of a salvage operstion based in Manila.His partner ,Callahan ,is a drunk who claims that he has the key to a fortune in lost diamonds ,sunk on board a vessel fleeing Manila before the Japanese occupation.When he is murdered suspicion falls on Mason especially when it becomes clear there is a mutual attraction between him and Callahan's widow (Ruth Roman ).Cleared of murder by the testimony of a private eye ,Ranier (well played by Paul Picerni)he is hired by the wealthy Benedict (Raymond Burr )to track down the treasure. The scene is set for betrayal ,shipwreck and a lively climax in the catacombs under Manila Cathedral. The movie sags a little in the underwater scenes which are murky and uninvolving but overall its a lively if minor thriller albeit one in which the ravages of the star's off screen debauchery are reflected in Flynn's appearance and slightly weary performance.Burr is admirable as the heavy and Roman is fine like most of the cast while the Max Steiner score is a big bonus.Good time passer but a long way from the stars glory days.