While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

Here's another one of those frustrating films where the outcome is left to the discretion of the viewer. Did the Capri Casuals facility get torched? Do Harry (Jack Lemmon) and Phil (Jack Gilford) wind up under a fraud investigation? It's not often you wind up with a picture where the most redeeming character winds up being an arsonist with ethics, who won't set a building on fire that has safety violations because it would leave the insurance payoff in doubt. Sounds like the guy was a consummate professional.But if you like your angst ridden characters who question their very existence in a career riddled with missed opportunities while lamenting the way things used to be, then there's probably no one better to portray that guy than your every man Jack Lemmon. When he flashes back to the war buddies he had back at Anzio Beach, you get a pretty good idea that the guy is on a downhill slide that even a twenty one year old free spirit won't be able to fix.At least the film makers found a way to make a connection to the title with the all too brief scene of an environmentalist making passers-by aware of the fate of the Bengal tiger. Harry distractedly adds his name to a petition in one of those throwaway moments that holds no resonance for the fate of tigers or anything else. His final comeuppance comes at the end of the story when the sandlot gang informs him that "You can't play with us, Mister". Only fitting, as most everything else Harry touched wound up being a shutout.

A businessman (Jack Lemmon)'s professional struggles begin to conflict with his personal life over the course of two days.Lemmon was determined to make the movie, despite its limited commercial prospects, and so he waived his usual salary and worked for scale. The movie failed financially at the box office, but critics and viewers who saw it liked the Oscar-winning performance of Jack Lemmon as Stoner.I have to agree with the viewers and Academy on this one. Lemmon, primarily known for his comedy, is excellent in this more serious film and really carries the picture. There is not much of a plot and although it is enjoyable, I suspect there is little re-watch value. But Lemmon is great, and this is very much a one-man show, so any fan of his is going to appreciate it.

"Save the Tiger" was such an absorbing experience that the anticlimactic ending almost left me puzzled. For one hour and half, I was following a slice of Harry Stoner's life, and expected him to get over with his inner demons or at least, to solve one or two of the several issues that were torturing him. But John G. Avidsen's film, served by a solid screenplay written by Steve Shagan leaves many interrogation marks, for a very few answers.But I wasn't describing a flaw in the story … just an instant thought, that slowly vanished as I let the film's memories grow on me, and as my mind put the film into its context. "Save the Tiger" is not about what happens to Harry, but about Harry. And that makes the whole difference. In fact, a movie like this would have been impossible to make today, no matter how significant such characters would still be, profit and entertainment reduced characters to secondary levels. Like, Harry Caul, Bobby Dupea or Sonny Wortzyk, Harry Stoner is one of these fascinating characters that only the New Hollywood period could have brought up to screen. And the performance of Jack Lemmon contributes to the film's impact more than the writing and the directing. I was eager to watch the role that beat Pacino in "Serpico", Nicholson in "The Last Detail" or Brando in "Last Tango in Paris", I was not disappointed, Lemmon elevates the film through one of his most mesmerizing performances.Harry Stoner is a character that can only be defined by the countless torments that inhabit his heart and mind. Previously, a successful executive at an apparel company, he's facing bankruptcy at the climax of the economical crisis that strikes America. Contemplating the idea of torching his own warehouse to get the insurance settlement, the flirt going with illegality is an occasion to question his values, ideals and to a certain extent his idea of America. Harry Stoner is a man who incarnates the decline of a certain idealism that wrote America's most glorious pages, and through the collapse of a man, it's the decline of America we witness. No time for jazz, baseball and national pride, the time has come for Harry to take a last survival move, this is what the title is about. He's the "Tiger" to be saved, he's –as he reminds his friend and associate, played by Jack Gilford- a vanishing breed.One word about Jack Gilford, he's the second driving force of the story, his interactions with Harry are so perfect, so realistic, that we don't see two actors communicating, but two real persons discussing about how life turned out to be. Gilford is the yin to Stoner's yang, he disapproves the way he provides prostitutes to his clients for business reasons, he firmly condemns Stoner's plans, but fail to convince him as Stoner's mind is already settled, and doesn't need a guardian angel but money, plain and simple. The 70's allowed many social misfits to grace the silver screen and invite a disillusioned population of the Nixon era to identify with. Stoner is one of them, but he's the only one who wasn't born a misfit, he used to be a successful, he used to believe in the American flag, he served his country, but all left are painful memories of a time where money, jazz and baseball filled the air with enthusiasm and optimism.And "Save the Tiger" is built on a series of events illustrating how detached from his world Stoner became. While making a speech at the premiere of his company's new line, he's overcome by the memories of fellow Gis who painted the sands of Capri in red. And, underscoring the process of his personal isolation, he takes a young flower girl to his home, for a night that reveals how ignorant she is of everything that defined his life. Stoner realizes that his 'vanishing breed' motto could've been truer, and on a pure cinematic level, I guess it's the speech and night scene that earned Lemmon his Oscar. The man is so frustratingly possessed by his own demons; he's a ghost evolving on a perpetual nightmare. The film's conclusion is left to many interpretations, unexpected and yet pessimistic within its own poetry. Are we supposed to feel empathetic, maybe not, but Lemmon is so magnetic and real, we understand him.I said the film would be impossible to make today, indeed, "Save the Tiger" is like these character studies that cared less about plots than about mirroring some personal insights trough unforgettable characters, so well-written and well-acted, they left indelible memories. Watching the film is like experiencing the moral agony of a man who tries but fail to fit in a society that goes too fast, or maybe in a whole opposite direction. 1973 was indeed a terrific year, from "Scarecrow" to "The Last Detail", characters trying to find a meaning to their life, a direction to take, all these films didn't have happy endings, but they were not sad either, as life itself can be ambiguous, some would say cynical, I don't think "Save the Tiger" is the cynical type."Save the Tiger" is simple because it only takes Lemmon and Gilford to carry the film with efficiency, the screenplay deserves praise although lesser actors wouldn't have injected the same electricity even in such an ambitious and psychologically rich project. And John G. Avildsen finds the perfect tone to let the emotions being guided by Lemmon, without overusing them, it's the same bleak but powerful directing he would use for "Rocky", a much more inspirational film that the audience certainly needed after 10 years of bleak and dark cinema.Still, like reflecting Stoner's inner persona, "Save the Tiger" is a vanished breed of film.

Jack Lemmon. One of the most Prolific, Stylish, Natural Actors of all-times. He's amongst those actors, who, if you watch once, you begin to adore them. I consider Lemmon to be more than just a Legendary Actor, I consider Lemmon to be an actor who took his profession as his bible and lived for his profession.'Save The Tiger', a tremendous attempt, won Lemmon an Academy-Award For Best Actor. And deserved too. His performance as Harry Stoner, an executive at a Los Angeles apparel company on the edge of ruin and man who has had a challenged past, is played by Lemmon as if he was born too.'Save The Tiger' is one of the bravest attempts of it's time. It's a challenging film, that is executed on Screen by the Sheer-Power of Lemmon. He not only helps the film at every level, he actually becomes it's backbone.John G. Avildsen's Direction is superb. The Adpated Screenplay by Steve Shagan, shows us the rough & disturbing journey of a man who hasn't chosen Hell or Heaven to survive. It's a brave film, that has been made with utmost bravery & courage. It's a human story you need to watch, especially, if you consider yourself to be a pseudo intellectual.This is Cinema at it's best for some, but for me, It's ACTING at it's peak of creativity. Lemmon, you are magic.