The Treasure of Jamaica Reef (1975)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Admirable film.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Detective Boyd is called to the scene of a bloody homicide tied to the disappearance of an ancient and cursed treasure map. So, as the narrative explains, with imminent long service leave, the amateur scuba diver enlists the skills of a group of likeminded boffins to search for the elusive and dangerous cargo. As you'd expect, other more sinister interests also embark on the hunt, looking to capitalize on any discoveries the team makes. But all is jeopardized by the presence of several sharks, fiercely protective of the tainted booty.Ostensibly a treasure hunting movie, there's much emphasis placed on the planning and execution of the hunt, moreover than effective action. The characters perform brain surgery on the task, which would be ideal if one were watching a salvage operation documentary as opposed to a feature film. In point of fact, while a large, menacing shark features prominently on the dust cover to the DVD, you'll only see two actual attacks in the movie. Fortunately, the second of these is worth the wait, for those who enjoy shark-related dismemberments. The affable Boyd is now well below the pinnacle of his Hollywood star, but appears no less enthusiastic about the dull pace and lack of momentum. Future Charlie's Angels starlet Cheryl Ladd is bright and bubbly, but can provide little in the way of depth to the laboured proceedings.So with one cadaver and a solitary severed limb off a bad guy chalked up to the sharks, it's not the feeding frenzy you might have expected from the dust cover. Perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered longer print in which the sharks feature more prominently, such is the 104 minutes running time published on some dust covers. And then again, perhaps be thankful there isn't.

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.

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....