WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Leofwine_draca I'm a big fan of the soggy rip-offs that followed in the wake of Spielberg's JAWS, but I'm the first to acknowledge that most of them weren't very good. One of the worst is BLOOD TIDE, a film that features a good cast, is shot in Greece to give it that exotic, continental look, and has a great-looking humanoid monster lurking in the depths to drag pretty, sometimes naked, girls to their deaths. So why is it so bad? Because the monster shows up for little more than a couple of seconds, the murky underwater camera-work is diabolical, the whole movie is underlit and the script sucks, big time. It comes as little surprise that Nico Mastorakis – director of the sleazy video nasty ISLAND OF DEATH – had a hand in the script!Good ol' James Earl Jones (CONAN THE BARBARIAN) is the star of the show and also the best thing in the movie, even though his performance is pretty bad. Watch out for the fun diving sequences which have him heavy breathing, just like another one of his creations. That's gotta be an in-joke. What else does the movie offer? A sub-plot involving some mad nuns which is undoubtedly the most boring part of the film, really serving to drag things down. Plenty of blonde bimbo actresses who starred in DALLAS and whatnot, giving cheesy performances. Martin Kove redefining the meaning of 'wooden' – how did this guy carve out a career in Hollywood after this? Films like this tended to throw in an 'old era' actor for the more senior viewers, so Jose Ferrer's on hand here, but he has nothing to work with.The monster attack scenes are boring, with no suspenseful music, nothing to recommend them – just a tin of red paint poured into the water, that's all you see. I wish I could have seen more of the monster, because it DID look cool, but the last scenes of the film take place in almost utter darkness, so you'll end up squinting in an effort to see what's going on. I did like the Greek locales, but there's no taste of Greece here – they're wasted. BLOOD TIDE is no HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP, that's for sure; the low budget scuppers this one from the start. Endless, irrelevant conversation and people wandering around are the order of the day here, and it doesn't make for a good film – just a crappy one.

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.

marcusfernandes I bought this film with another 49 from amazon.com.It came within the famous sci-fi pack so many times here commented among IMDb-USERS.What surprises me more is this paradox,an 3.5(MARK) but 35 comments.Generally speaking,it is a good adventure in a film with serious problems of photography(the copy that i have!),a monster that we rarely see,peasants of a small Greek island and a stupid blonde.These characters were mixed-up with a gorgeous couple and a some sort of"archaeologist" who is fan of destroying monuments instead of study them to fulfill this story.Nothing great ,but one can watch it without commitment.

dbborroughs Film that is for ever in the dollar rack has aged badly, I remember this playing so much better back in 1982.James Earl Jones stars in a monster tale set in and around Greece. It has to do with an ancient monster lurking around and eating virgins. its the sort of thing you've seen a dozen times before both better and worse.Its not bad movie as such but there is way too much talk and nowhere near enough monster. The film taken for what it is isn't bad but it promises way more than it delivers. Actually it delivers little, but it does keep you watching. If you're stuck watching it it won't kill you. Its also the sort of thing that once you watch it you can use the DVD as a coaster.