Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action
Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation
Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
Chris Gaskin I picked up a copy of this movie on VHS last year (2008) as it looked interesting after reading the cover, I was certainly wrong about that! I found this to be one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, very slow moving and poor quality too.But, it has one good point, excellent underwater photography which kept me watching it.Not a bad cast too, including Stephen Boyd (Fantastic Voyage), David Ladd and Cheryl Ladd.A boring 75 minutes, worth watching only for the underwater photography.Rating: 2 stars out of 5.
KillYourTV This has got to be, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen! I tried watching it for a little 70's nostalgia....but it was just too bad (I'll stick to movies from the 40's and 50's thank you!).The soundtrack was nothing but annoying noise...the writing bland; the story was absurd (Yeah...like this group of doofuses could even walk down a street without getting mugged, much less find a treasure!) and the acting made the Brady Bunch seem Shakespearian by comparison! If I had walked in on this movie, I would've thought it was a skit making fun of 70's movies...only it's not funny. I was wishing all the characters would just get a good case of the bends and disappear!
roddmatsui This was released on a widescreen VHS tape by Anchor Bay a few years back, and if you're a fan of silly, slowly-paced, violent 70's films, you may find it to be fun.This is a fairly standard treasure hunt film in which some decent people decide to photocopy a supposedly cursed map ("If there was a curse, it could hardly go through a copy machine," the narrator confidently explains) and go looking for the sunken cache of gold. Nice underwater footage of rotting old boats, sharks, coral, and various kinds of grody sea scum. It seems that the diving footage was captured first, and the script then written around it; the film subsequently made with actors wearing diving suits that matched those of the divers in the original footage. At least, that's what it looks like to me. If that is the case, it's pulled off fairly well.Film is notable, or maybe not, for its 70's-style mean-spirited violence, which provides for some fairly graphic and shocking moments, including sharks munching on a girl, and a face burned on a barbecue. This was before sophisticated gore effects were in vogue, and so most of the violence is achieved with simple makeup and bright red opaque 70's blood poured all over the place. The intent to startle is clearly there.As mentioned in another review, there is a G-rated cut of the film available, in case you'd like to see the treasure-hunt stuff without the gruesome, gory violence. This shorter cut isn't too bad either!Not high art, but it's not a bad movie, really, just a bit of low-budget exploitation.
anne-marie-leblic I watched at that movie as a fan of Stephen Boyd, and I was also interested by the fact that he personally participated to the production. I have to be honest, the movie that I have seen is not good. I saw a new tape purchased on the web and issued by a regular company. Is it a right one ? So many tapes are recorded from TV re-issues, with a blurry picture and cuts, that I would like to get the point of view of somebody who had really attented at a performance at the time it came out. The critics of the movie in 1976 were not so bad. Where is the truth ?The shots, under the water are really beautiful. The fact that advertising made at the time of the movie are speaking of "jaws" and that I saw just a few sharks makes me definitly think that we are facing a short version and that we have to be careful with our judgment. The VHS would have had to quote on their jackets when they are coming from TV copies and not from the original film.
