Wonderful character development!

Sadly Over-hyped

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Some younger viewers may wonder how a comedian like Jack Lemmon, in a practically unknown film called Save the Tiger, could have possibly swiped the Best Actor Oscar from legendary actors like Marlon Brando (Last Tango in Paris), Jack Nicholson (The Last Detail) and Al Pacino (Serpico). But if they'll actually watch the film, they'll find that Lemmon's performance is indeed better than all of them. In his first major dramatic role since Days of Wine and Roses (1962) he proves that he's much more than just a comedian, and that he's just as good as any of the young hot-shots of his time (Nicholson, Hoffman, Pacino, De Niro, Redford) and can even be as intense as his more celebrated peer Brando (with the added bonus of being funny, too).Lemmon plays businessman Harry Stoner with quiet intensity, emotions always bubbling beneath the surface. Stoner is jaded, nostalgic, a former idealist on the verge of a nervous breakdown; Lemmon delivers all that with utmost subtlety and hints of tremendous depth. Some may find Save the Tiger dull or slow, but it's a film that rewards patience and close attention - it's a character study in the finest sense of the word, and Lemmon is more than up to the task. Though some credit should be given to his excellent supporting cast (including Jack Gilford, Laurie Heineman, Norman Burton and Ned Glass) it's clearly Lemmon's show, and he delivers one of the finest acting jobs in the history of cinema. It demands a lot of patience from the viewer - more than Last Tango in Paris or Serpico, that's for sure. But it's worth every minute.

Jack Lemmon won an Academy Award for playing Harry Stoner in this film. He's a businessman in fashion in Los Angeles, California. His wife goes away for a funeral on the East Coast. Their daughter is in boarding school in Switzerland. The film begins with the morning of a long day in this man's life. There are plenty of brilliant moments of Jack Lemmon's acting ability where you see why he won the Oscar for this performance. The film does lack a strong script. The script is more of a character study where the audience understands a man's yearning for the past in the present in 1972. Life is not easy for this businessman who gives a lift to this young woman played by Laurie Heineman. Jack Gilford should have gotten awards for his performance as his business partner. The film is more dramatic and comedic at times. It's not for children or immature audiences.

"Save the Tiger" is mostly remembered as the great Jack Lemmon performance. Indeed it was a great Lemmon performance but it is an awful shame that that's the prevalent memory. The film combines a real-world plot with colorful yet believable characters. I saw it in a theater the year it was released and have viewed it many times since. Each time I see something new in it. It was released four years after I left a job that brought me into contact with a number of real-life Harry Stoners struggling to get by in their small, closely-held businesses. There are so many great scenes and lines. One of my favorites is Harry Stoner's after-hours talk with his elderly veteran cutter and Harry's reply when the cutter asks what Harry really wants. The emotion and symbolism in this film surpass any I've seen in other flicks. That it did not rate in the top 400 films of all time clearly indicates the ratings committee never viewed or understood it. Or maybe they snobbishly dismissed it for Lemmon's no-name supporting cast.

I don't know where to begin, except to say that Jack Lemmon was one of our finest actors and is one of my personal favorites. Many can find fault with this film, but a great performance can make any ordinary film extraordinary. Each time I see it, I want to see it again. Its depiction of a man, in the supposed prime of his life, who's thoroughly unhappy with it, is unflinchingly raw and real. Its somber and bleak tone may turn off some viewers, expecting one of Lemmon's usual comedies. But, I am just in awe. Once the viewer sees him lying on the floor, saying he just wants to feel...something, they are not likely to forget it. One gets the feeling that he won the Oscar, not only because he was outstanding, but because he was willing to subject himself to a nervous breakdown just for a role. Lemmon said he did have one, in the making of this movie. He so deserved the Oscar. Save the Tiger's bitterest irony is that we have causes, funds, and drives for animals becoming extinct, but what do we do mankind? We may do more now, in the 2000s, than we did in the 70s, which is why people were ashamed of their problems then and didn't know where to turn. Finally, the ending is up to the viewer. Does Harry Stoner have a revelation, after being rejected by the boys playing? Does he feel like he's becoming extinct? Does he see himself forever living in the past? Does he feel only the futility of his life? Or, does he feel he can do something positive? What happens next to Harry Stoner is not shown, because it is up to you... because you are Harry Stoner.