The Treasure of Jamaica Reef

1975 "Rips your nerves to shreds!"
The Treasure of Jamaica Reef
3.2| 1h36m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 01 March 1975 Released
Producted By: D & R Film Project
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

An adventure film about the search for a more than 200-year-old treasure on the ocean floor.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

D & R Film Project

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Chase_Witherspoon 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.
humbleradio OK, well, not really, but I DID enjoy it. Yes, I did. And I even watched it online, streaming, so the copy was even worse than the poor quality VHS hinted at in other comments. But, heck, I loved it. Sure it's clunky, silly, and ridiculous, but it's fun! So, count me in!Cheryl Ladd, Stephen Boyd, Chuck Woolery, Rosie Grier and that hugely awkward wood barrel van! They all put a smile on my face. And maybe yours too! Don't take life so seriously. When it comes to movies, music and art, relax, take it in, and don't take anybody's word for anything. Experience them all yourself. Would you trust another person, a stranger, to tell you what music to listen to? I didn't think so. So, you shouldn't do it with any film and not with this film, either. So, like I said, check it out. You may find yourself smiling before you know it.
KillYourTV This has got to be, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen! I tried watching it for a little 70's nostalgia....but it was just too bad (I'll stick to movies from the 40's and 50's thank you!).The soundtrack was nothing but annoying noise...the writing bland; the story was absurd (Yeah...like this group of doofuses could even walk down a street without getting mugged, much less find a treasure!) and the acting made the Brady Bunch seem Shakespearian by comparison! If I had walked in on this movie, I would've thought it was a skit making fun of 70's movies...only it's not funny. I was wishing all the characters would just get a good case of the bends and disappear!
anne-marie-leblic 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.