El diablo de las profundidades

I honestly don't get it! How is it possible that this movie was so dreadfully boring in spite of all the indicators of pure 70's entertainment? Look at all the potentially great stuff here: we have a plot about cursed treasures in sunken galleons, the robust macho actor Stephen Boyd, marvelously exotic Granada filming locations, Jordan Ladd's equally astounding mother Cheryl in a tiny bikini, shark attacks and boat explosions! Adventure movies like this are practically a guaranteed success, yet somehow director Virginia L. Stone managed to ruin the formula entirely. How? Through a combination of inexplicably slow pacing, completely inappropriate slapstick elements and a ridiculous Benny Hill-esquire score and the overuse of irritating clichés (like villains with atrocious German accents). At the scene of a crime, homicide inspector Hugo Graham finds an ancient treasure map that supposedly carries a curse with it. All the previous nine owners of the map died violent deaths, regardless of whether they even attempted to track down the treasure or not. Fascinated by the mystery, Graham takes a photocopy of the map and mobilizes four of his friends to go treasure hunting during his annual vacation. As if the film itself isn't boring enough yet, there's also Boyd's completely unnecessary and monotonous narration. The action sequences and stunts are poorly handled, stupid and too obviously fake. All the available budget for this movie clearly went to the waterproof camera equipment and location hunters. Admittedly the underwater photography is impressive and the Jamaica/Granada locations look like postcards, with their crystal blue waters, colorful reefs and tropical sandy beaches.

It can't be a thriller because everyone on the planet knows they are treasure hunting ... it can't be a love story because there are no lovers ...someone said it was great because you got to see cheryl ladds boobage ... i've seen them in the raw and they don't look near as good as propped up by an underwire bra ... someone else said the underwater photography was fantastic, compared to what ? ... every foot of the film i saw was out of focus on land as well as in the water ... where you are diving is never a big secret as air bubbles always give you away ...if you want to see a treasure dive film that is beautifully done, see the deep (1977) with nick nolte and jacqueline bisset .. at least she has the real goods to show and you can rely on eli wallach and louis gossett to be the really evil crooks

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.

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.

It's a bad movie but It has a couple of really awful scenes:

1) Bad man get face grilled on a open bit bar-b-que grill. His face was well done in 3 seconds.

2)During a fight, a grenade explodes in the boat. Does anyone die? NO Does anyone get hurt? NO What happens? The shockwave of the explosion throws everyone into the water and the fight continues....