I'll come right out and say it here at the beginning, "Blood Tide" would be a better monster movie if there were, you know, some actual monster in it. Therein is my biggest disappointment with the flick. We've got an ideal underwater setting with some great underwater shots; throw in a cave and some submerged ruins off a secluded island and you've got yourself a great sea monster locale. Too bad that monster only shows up for a grand total of something like 10 seconds. It's like "Jaws" without featuring a shark at all.

 

The first time I saw the movie I was really let down by the lack of tension and terror thanks to the monster that has no presence. When I watched it again I realized that it really isn't all that bad a movie overall, it just doesn't live up to the promise of being a monster movie.

 

Neil and his wife travel to a secluded Greek isle looking for Neil's sister who has been out of communication with the family for some months. The area has a barely remembered history of sacrificing virgins to a sea beast which amateur archaeologist Frye unwittingly releases from its earthquake-created prison. As the creature begins gobbling up swimmers the locals begin to clash with the American outsiders. Neil is happy to get out of there, but not without his sister Maddy who is being almost supernaturally drawn towards sacrificing herself to appease the beast.

 

The overall story, plot, and characters are strong enough that I expected this to be adapted from a novel though it isn't as far as I can tell. It has all the indications of being something that reads well on the page but can't be translated to the screen without the proper vision and funding. I can't help but wonder if lack of funding is why we don't see more of the sea creature.

 

Some measure of vision is there but it seems to be one geared more towards an archaeological suspense than ancient monster terror. How does it do with the suspense? It could be better. Maybe they were trying for a less-is-more approach, but they give us so little that it fails to ever create a strong atmosphere. It has a little bit of a mood just not enough to carry the movie.

 

What then makes the movie worth watching? The characterizations help a lot. They can be odd without enough behind those moments to really carry them, but there are some other moments that are almost impressive. The dialogue is solid and feels natural. A scene in which a drunk James Earl Jones is trying to have a conversation might just be one of the best of those kinds of scenes I've seen.

 

That leads me to another positive: actors. Jones is perhaps the biggest draw, and he adds a flavor to Frye that makes a huge difference to the overall movie. Martin Kove and Jose Ferrer are solid as well. The female actors are less well known to me, but I thought Mary Louise Weller and Debora Shelton were both pretty good.

 

A good score would have helped the movie. There isn't much music here, and what we do get is not very good. Special effects are minimal so good or bad they don't have much effect on the overall feel. Editing could be better at times, but could also be worse.

 

The location is the one thing that deserves some praise as far as production values. The underwater shots look great, the island and its buildings have some character, and even the cave and ruins sell well.