Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Red-Barracuda It wouldn't be unfair to say that Greece hasn't got the best pedigree when it comes to movies. There doesn't really appear to have been a film industry in action there at any point in time. Probably the best effort I have seen from that country is the notorious Island of Death. Its director Nico Mastorakis was also responsible for the screenplay of, this film, Blood Tide. There's no way that the latter film is as good as the former but I have to say I didn't really find it all that bad either. It's about a shady archaeologist who inadvertently unleashes a legendary evil creature from its century's long sleep. It's true that it is fairly uneventful from a horror point-of-view but overall I thought that the events surrounding the sea monster had just enough intrigue to keep this one afloat.The monster itself is hardly seen. Mostly we encounter it via point-of-view camera-work. When it is seen briefly, it doesn't in all honesty look that bad but I guess the film-makers thought otherwise. There are a couple of gory attacks in the water and a massacre of nuns at a monastery, while the chopped up remains of a victim are found on the beach. But mainly, this is a slow burner with little visceral material. I thought the plot strands about the ancient drawings that are found in the monastery that depict the monster was quite good as well and added a decent level of interest.It never escapes the fact that it's obviously hampered by a low budget though but the exotic Greek location does add some worthwhile production value. And it also has James Earl Jones at its disposal too; seemingly he did the film in order to get a paid-for holiday. But much better is Deborah Shelton as the enigmatic woman who ultimately offers herself as a virginal sacrifice to the beast; she was very beautiful and added a welcome sensual aspect that didn't do the film any harm at all.

gpeltz Something went horribly wrong. It's 1982, and we have a long list of positives, that should have delivered a good creature feature. Start with Technicolor exotic Greek island locations, add some slight feeling of cinematography, artistic set up shots, add to this some outstanding actors and some scantily clad females frolicking on the sunlit beach. It's a long list of pluses. How did it fail? As mentioned before, there are a solid troupe of actors led by James Earl Jones, and Jose Ferrer. They sit, talk and react, almost all in this movie would do a "Actors Studio" improv session proud. They think about their parts, and try to guess their motivation. That is what many of the scenes feel like. The only thing missing is a comprehensible scrip. As stated, the individual elements are good, The Archaeologist who discovers the Islands "dark secret" The ancient monastery with kindly Nuns who fear the "dark secret" The Islanders, a superstitious bunch led by Jose Ferrer, who want the intrusive island visitors to be gone, The brash young newlyweds seeking the lost sister, and the treasure hunter, James Earl Jones who unleashes the islands "dark secret". Given these elements a screenwriter with half a sense of direction could churn out an acceptable product. But no, that was not to happen. I feel the director hired someone to design the monster, the key to the movies action, but in the end was unhappy with the creatures design, and decided not to use it, the "hokey" creature shows on screen for a total of four seconds. I think it shows up as a costume in the islanders "folk dance" The problem is, without a monster, the show has no anchor for all the fine acting, as was stated by a finer poet then me, "The center can not hold, things fall apart!".On the plus side, the actress who played the ditsy Barbara was fun to watch, and had some good lines, The actress who played Marylin, the "conflicted" sister, did not have a convincing grasp of what she was suppose to be doing, archaeologist, or sacrificial maiden. The lack of logic, not usually a stumbling point in creature features, here became an insurpassable obstacle. I was never aware of James Earl Jones characters reasoning, but he sure sounded good. The ending was a confusing, poorly plotted attempt to bring the elements together. Thats the reason for the major "fail" The stronger the good points, the harder the fall.

TheExpatriate700 Considering the talent involved, Blood Tide is a total disappointment. The film follows the emergence of a legendary sea monster after an unethical treasure hunter dynamites the wall that held it in its den for thousands of years. (Why didn't it starve to death?)The acting is truly abysmal. James Earl Jones spends most of his time muttering quotes from Othello, while Jose Ferrer spends his time translating for the other Greek characters. (The film has no subtitles, even in scenes where all the characters speak Greek.) The supporting cast is completely useless, with terrible line deliveries. This is especially true of the virginal heroine.The gore is extremely limited, and the monster is only seen very briefly. There is a rather interesting hint that the monster molests the women sacrificed to it, but this is never explored. In the hands of a more talented director such as David Cronenberg, it might have been interesting.

cameron-kills-it "Blood Tide" is about a young couple who go searching on a Greek isle for the husband's sister, only to find that the sister is friends with an archaeologist who discovers a secret underwater cave and ultimately releases a creature with a taste for virgin blood! This film started off pretty slow, but after the first half-hour, it starts to get better. We only see the monster for about 3 seconds, and when you do, you kind of wish you hadn't! It is a very fake-looking monster, and it ruined the eeriness of the situation. If I were the director, I wouldn't have showed the monster at all, just let the viewers' minds fill in the blanks, which is scarier than anything that could be shown on screen. The acting is alright, and dialogue is a little iffy, but all in all, I recommend this nice little horror flick! Rated: R for Violence and Brief NudityGrade: C-