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.

bkoganbing Mara Maru came in Errol Flynn's career at a time when Warner Brothers and the rest of Hollywood for the most part was trying to divest itself of its big name stars and the salaries they commanded. It's the kind of a film that studios were giving stars to satisfy whatever commitments were still under contract. They did not think this was worth going to the Phillipines to shoot even.In plot it's similar to a Glenn Ford film The Green Glove where another war veteran is searching for an object that's both valuable in monetary terms and has great religious significance. In tone Mara Maru looks like something that might have been meant for another Bogey and Bacall teaming.Flynn plays a part of a World War II veteran who is a charter boat captain out of the Phillipines who knows the location of a jeweled cross taken from a church with the coming of the Japanese and sunk somewhere in the seas off Luzon. So does his partner Richard Webb who talks a little too much in a Manila bar and winds up dead.Which doesn't concern Webb's wife Ruth Roman who is doing a Lauren Bacall knockoff of a performance. She's got a thing for Flynn in any event. Of course master villain Raymond Burr is behind a whole lot of things that befall Flynn until Flynn uses his boat to take him to the lost cross. It's an uneasy type alliance as you can gather. In the mix is Paul Picerni playing a Peter Lorre type part. Picerni is a man of very shifting loyalties and his part is terribly underwritten.Some underwater sequences could have used some color to appreciate them better, something Jack Warner wasn't about to splurge for in this potboiler. Mara Maru is not a bad film, but it's certainly nothing that any of Errol Flynn's fans would put at the top five for him.

ashew It is beyond me why critics had such a problem with Errol Flynn. He was, even in his worst films, an excellent actor. I think people let his personal flaws and wild personal life cloud their opinion. I think Errol Flynn is one of the most under-rated actors in the history of film, and never got the respect he deserved. Yes, part of that is certainly his own fault, but definitely not all of it.Mara Maru is unquestionably one of Flynn's lesser films. It is a bit slow in parts, and there are a couple of plot holes that one must overlook, but I found myself overlooking them and just watching the movie to be entertained. If one does this, the movie is certainly worth a viewing. I found Ruth Roman such a blessing, as she was not one of those melodramatic, chew-the-wallpaper actresses from the old studio system...she was grounded, strong, and REALLY beautiful. The rest of the supporting cast was pretty good, too. Raymond Burr is always fun to watch as a bad guy, and I enjoyed the two actors who portrayed the Filipino boys. Paul Picerni and Dan Seymour I found to be a little over the top, but not so bad that they were totally annoying or unwatchable. And, for me, anything with Errol Flynn is fun...even in a mediocre film...there is just something about the guy that I like.I'm giving the movie a 6 out of 10 mostly because of the solid B-film performances, competent directing through most of the film (I think the flaws are derived from poor editing, not from the directing), and for the ever-enjoyable Errol Flynn. I think those coming to the film with realistic expectations, prepared for B-film entertainment, and willing to overlook the weaknesses of the screenplay, will find themselves in for an enjoyable film experience.