User reviews

It's a shame that this film does not get much attention, and it's all but disappeared now. Which is a pity because if you allow yourself to go with the very leisurely pace, it's actually an effective little story. Susan Hampshire plays a woman who suffers such profound grief at the death of her lover that she somehow manages to bring him back from the dead. She doesn't do it intentionally though, and is shocked and bewildered by his seemingly miraculous return. Unfortunately, although he can move about he's still dead in every other respect, so things can only go downhill for poor Susan.

Filmed outdoors in lots of cold and grey coastal locations, the film is really a bleak love story and probably bored a lot of people to death. Pretty much panned by all critics on it's release it's now hanging somewhere in limbo, and other than a few TV appearances it would probably be impossible to see it now. A modest DVD release might help it recover some fans, as it's really not the failure it has been described as. Competently made and with good performances, it's a lot better than some of the other trash that passes for "cult" fan viewing.

A married woman while on vacation falls passionately in love and begins an affair with a lighthouse keeper, only to be left heartbroken when he dies suddenly. However the very next day he turns up on her door-step, in a zombie-like state. Was it her grief that did that? Anyhow she's overly happy, hoping they can rekindle their love. But she soon realises that his body is beginning to decompose and that she must soon decide their fate. Picturesque, slightly disturbing and haunting British Gothic tale of love with a real sense of tragedy and despair. The grotesquely odd story is kind of ambiguous and scratchy in parts, relying on mood (more so then sense), convincing chemistry and a strongly affecting performance by Susan Hampshire. She really does carry it along quite nicely with a real mix of emotions. But the likes of Frank Finlay (especially in his zombie state) and Michael Petrovitch are not being overshadowed. The music was a bit a shamble. Sometimes fitting, other times awkward. The slow pacing is deliberate and some sequences do pack atmosphere (especially when Hampshire's character comes to the realisation they can't be together), but it feels somewhat lukewarm in Fred Burnley's directorial attempt of capturing some sort of brooding realism to this low-key build-up of macabre. It's nicely photographed with the bleak coastal locations adding to the perceptive nature of its story.

Anna Robinson (Susan Hampshire) is on a hubby-less holiday at the beautiful Isle of Jersey, hoping for an escape from the routine of her dull lifestyle and perhaps a little more. She finds this in George (Frank Finlay), a brooding local who becomes her personal tour guide. The two instantly click and before long they find themselves in a passionate affair. She drops her old life and begins anew with George. Tragedy unexpectedly strikes, leaving George dead and Anna mourning. Her commitment to her new lover is truly put to the test when George inexplicably returns to her.

Fred Burnley's "Neither the Sea Nor the Sand" is a somewhat successful romance/horror hybrid. It's a bit too heavy on the romance for my tastes, though the relationship between the two lead characters is always believable and never descends into complete schmaltz. I would rather watch something like this than, say, "Ghost," which may have been influenced by this or the novel on which it is based. Another film I thought of while watching this was Bob Clark's gem "Deathdream" (1974). George's restrained zombie/ghost is akin to Andy, with a blank stare in eyes and a deep pain in his voice. Fans of modern low-budget horror may also notice some similarities between this and "Zombie Honeymoon" (2004.)

The main strength of the film lies in the characterization of the likable lead and Hampshire's performance. She plays her complex role with grace and dignity. I never got the impression that she is being punished for her infidelity or newfound liberation, which some viewers might think as the story unfolds. The second thing I appreciated most is the lush cinematography, which brings life to the sea as if it is another character in the film. The biggest downside to the movie is the score. It's effectively chilling during scenes of horror and suspense, but for much of the film it wavers between gratingly lovey-dovey and happy-go-lucky (complete with "la la las" singing over it.)

The film is never frightening, though much of it is unsettling. It does have the tendency to drag in more than a few places, but overall it's an effectively tragic love story with a genre twist. I think most fans of 70s horror would find something they like in this. The recently released Image DVD features a decent transfer and good audio.

A very idiosyncratic little movie, NEITHER THE SEAM NOR THE SAND is curiously comparative to a Harlequin Romance novel, but spiked with zombie-horror trappings. A young couple's passionate love story ends with the boy's tragic death...or does it? All is seemingly rectified when his reanimated body returns to the waiting arms of his grieving lover. She is initially overjoyed, though it latterly becomes clear that he's not quite himself anymore...plus, the decomposition of his body advances, making the couple's intimacy issues rather unappetizing .

Reaction to this film will be scattered, likely with a stronger appeal to patient solicitors of singular horror novelties than to rank-and-file fans of zombie cinema. It's a subdued and casually precipitated oddity with some beautiful scenic location filming.

5.5/10...not wholly praiseworthy, perhaps, but a surprisingly poignant and refreshing deviation from the "same-old same-old".

Upon its release this was labelled by multiple critics as "undoubtedly one of the worst movies of the 70s", and around here quite a few reviews are extremely harsh as well. I can understand why people dislike it, though. I, too, find the film incredibly slow-paced, indecisive in terms of tone and atmosphere, and perhaps slightly overlong. And yet, overall, I found "Neither the Sea nor the Sand" strangely mystifying, deeply absorbing, and a lot more thought-provoking than any other movie I have seen lately. Bottom line, I disagree with the critics and cherish it dearly.

For starters, this is one of those really rare films where you absolutely can't guess what it's about when you avoid reading summaries or reviews. You can't derive anything from the title, and even up until halfway through the length you still don't have a clue where the story will be heading too. I sincerely hope you're reading this review AFTER you've seen the film already. The beautiful Ilse of Jersey filming locations, the hypnotizing music, and the devoted performance of Susan Hampshire all help making "Neither the Sea nor the Sand" a unique piece of poetry.

Anna is stuck in a marital crisis and fled to the Ilse of Jersey to sort things out. She falls head over heels in love with mysterious and philosophical lighthouse caretaker Hugh. She abandons everything for him, and they're happy for a while, but during a trip to Scotland Hugh suffers from a heart-attack and dies. Needless to say, Anna is heartbroken. So heartbroken that, the next night, Hugh returns to her. Is he a ghost? Is he a zombie? It doesn't matter for Anna since it's her love that keeps Hugh alive and they can be together again. But, how long and at what cost can you co-exist with a corpse?

It's the theme of many a horror movie. People cannot accept the death of a loved one and are prepared to sacrifice everything to bring them back. Whatever way they succeed, though, they always painfully find out that nobody returns as the same person. "Neither the Sea nor the Sand" is also categorized as horror for this reason, and once even appeared under the infamous video-label Redemption, but you'll be sorely disappointed if you expect decaying zombies or malignant ghosts. Gordon Honeycombe's novel and script purely focuses on the heartache of loss, the purity of true love, and the power of mind.

It is certainly slow paced by today's standards but is an interesting piece of cinema folk horror harking back to ideas in The Monkeys Paw by Jacobs. As others have noted there are some good moments. The soundtrack doesn't always work (the jaunty, groovy music expressing the good times only made me giggle). It is certainly a film of it's era. If remade, it would make a good short film.

Some of the reviews below seem a little confused...the main male character is Hugh, not George who is the puritanical brother, and Hugh is not a lighthouse keeper but works at the Jersey airport with another character Colin, who comes into play later in the story. Though the lighthouse does play an important part as a representation of themes in the story.

The opening scenes of this film - Susan Hampshire walking out to a Jersey lighthouse where she encounters "Hugh" (Michael Petrovich) rather sum up the mundanity of this fairly dull romantic drama. It looks good, they look good - but somewhere along the line, the story just runs out of steam as it struggles to stay out of a soup of melodrama. Of course the two become lovers, and of course she has baggage - a marriage that no longer works, but when tragedy ensues they must face reality with a fresh, and frequently, troubling perspective. Perhaps the book was more evocative, indulged the imagination more? This adaptation really doesn't. There is little on-screen chemistry between our two principals, and the obstacles to their happiness all-to-often come across as contrived and over-played with demons galore. Frank Finlay - never exactly versatile - probably has the best character as his rather puritanical brother "George" but the whole really doesn't equal what ought to have been the sum of the parts. It's slow, stodgy and rather weakly scored with a predictable and stilted dialogue that made me cringe on occasion. Some lovely location photography, and plenty of seagulls - but otherwise this is pretty lacking on just about every other front.

Zombie flick? Not on your life. Certainly not like the tedious maniacal, blood-thirsty zombies that Americans are so fond of. It's the understated presence of the 'living dead' (animated by the spirit of Hampshire's love) in the shape of Michael Petrovitch that makes the film unnerving.

"We're so happy" opening lasts for 35 minutes - too long, but once that's over the film becomes compelling.

Lovely theme spoilt by a lame piece of artless sixties pop (Land rover on beach scene), jarring to say the least.

This is more like a Twilight Zone or a Tales of the Unexpected. It would be better suited if it were edited down to a 30 minute short TV episode.

It is slow paced and poorly written with no real reason yo tie the two main characters together. Apparently, walking past someone near a lighthouse is sufficient to fall in love! Really?! And the weird zombie sex?! Not for me, thanks.

This is more like a Twilight Zone or a Tales of the Unexpected. It would be better suited if it were edited down to a 30 minute short TV episode.

It is slow paced and poorly written with no real reason yo tie the two main characters together. Apparently, walking past someone near a lighthouse is sufficient to fall in love! Really?! And the weird zombie sex?! Not for me, thanks.

If the director had not died in 1975,he could almost have thought of suing François Ozon whose "Sous Le Sable" ("Under the Sand")bears more than a distant resemblance to "Neither the Sea..."The 2000 work ,starring Charlotte Rampling and Bruno Cremer is certainly more satisfying ,but it owes a lot to the obscure (at least in France) screenwriters of this movie.

Direction is amateurish ,and it's really a pity because there were potentially great scenes ,particularly this one when Susan Hampshire keeps on repeating in the car "Talk to me!Don't look at me that way!"There's also a good use of E.Browning's poem ("I shall but love thee better after death").Puritanism shows in the first half:George's brother makes Anna realize she is not really the welcome in the house.The woman says that "they were punished because they lived a life of sin".

The main problem lies in the fact that the "living dead" should not have been "seen " by the others.François Ozon did not fall in the same trap.People who liked this movie should try and see his work too.

During much of "The Exorcism of Hugh", my oldest daughter kept begging me to turn off the TV. That's because it is an incredibly slow film...glacially slow....snail's pace slow. What occurs in the first hour EASILY could have been done in 10 minutes or less! So was it worth our sticking with this one until the end? Read on and see for yourself.

The film begins with two lovers meeting in Jersey. Soon, they decide to take a little trip to Scotland where, for no particular reason, the boyfriend just dies. This takes us to the middle of the film--one hour and this is all that occurs! However, despite being dead, he apparently becomes undead--and they just hop on a plane and fly back to his place in Jersey. During all this time, his lady friend talks a lot--and Hugh just stands around like a zombie. When the dead guy's brother begins preaching at him (after all, perhaps he thought a few well-chose Bible verses would compel Hugh to come to terms with being dead), Hugh kills him! And, for the rest of the film, the audience HOPES that more violence occurs--because at least then SOMETHING would happen. Unfortunately, this murder seems like an aberration and for the longest time afterwords, the two lovers hang out at Hugh's house. Later, the lady finds that hanging with a zombie and kissing him isn't all it's cracked up to be but Hugh just keeps rotting...and perhaps waiting for the director to give him SOME direction!

All in all, the idea of a love that compels a man to remain undead and to devotedly follow his sweetie is a great idea--and it's hard to imagine such a film being this awful. Too bad the director was apparently insane and made absolutely nothing of the idea. Glacial pacing does NOT make for a satisfying film and my daughter was right--the payoff for seeing the rest of the film wasn't worth the long wait.

By the way, if you do choose to see the film (DON'T!!), try to turn down the sound during some of the musical interludes. A few of them are so bad that it might cause hysterical deafness.

A couple meet and fall so passionately in love with each other, that when he suddenly dies, he returns to carry on their relationship.

This is certainly an interesting notion and all involved go to great lengths to sell it and of course the whole of the uk adores Susan Hampshire. However, whilst you do occasionally get drawn into this slow burner, it doesn't quite land the concept and sometimes seems like a long episode of tales of the unexpected - a curious mixture of love story and horror that isn't wholly successful.

To list three red-flags of this low-budget, undeveloped, under-written production:

* Wardrobe was cast bringing three changes of clothing.

* Locale change - from Jersey Island to Scottish shores - has no effect on threadbare story.

* First act was slow, undeveloped and had me fast-forwarding. The breaking waves had the best lines - all too often, the only lines.

The one plus is the sex scene between the two lead characters. A young Susan Hampshire in bed straddling atop from my POV fits my idea of nocturnal Heaven perfectly. Probably, she took the part to get a tasteful sex scene in her resume (hey, it was the '70s.)

Sad to say, it wasn't enough. This picture bored me so badly I can't even work up the bile to give this a worse review.

Her marriage on the rocks, Anna Robinson (Susan Hampshire) goes to Jersey where she falls for islander Hugh (Michael Petrovitch). The couple begin a passionate love affair which is tragically cut short when Hugh suddenly dies from a heart condition. Anna is grief stricken, but her love for Hugh is so strong that not even death can keep them apart...

Neither the Sea Nor the Sand is a bleak, romantic horror love story that is told at a very gradual pace and requires a lot of patience from the viewer; I'm not entirely convinced that the film is worth the perseverance. It's more than likely too sappy for the average horror fan, too offbeat for anyone looking for a routine tearjerker, and simply too slow for almost everyone. The two leads are given some dreadful dialogue, and it's lucky for Petrovich that his character is mute for the second half of the film, leaving it up to Hampshire to shoulder most of the embarrassment.

Frank Finlay was probably relieved when his character - Hugh's puritanical brother George - plunges over a cliff in his van.

4.5/10, generously rounded up to 5 for IMDb. Goths and emos might enjoy this one more than most.

This strange film is based on a book by a former British television newsreader and is a combination of love story and ghost story. The settings are striking and the music score effective but it's a slow affair and one is baffled as to what market the film-makers were aiming for.

Stumbled across this one whilst flicking through many hundreds of other rubbish offerings streaming services fill their servers with. Without checking the IMDb score I gave this a try.

The film opens up near the lighthouse but other than that it has little relevance to the story which in itself has a very bizarre introduction. No character set up, no back story, no lead up, just jumps in with two strangers having a little chat about the sea and then 30 seconds later decide that yes, they should fall in love. They walk on beaches and have sex in Jersey.

Without warning, or explanation they decide to fly to Scotland, which from Jersey is extraordinary. And to do what? Do the same thing again. (I've a feeling they just kept filming in Jersey and somehow showing us a plane bound for Scotland will convince us otherwise.) After a medical mishap the bloke dies but comes back to life. Oh well, these things happen, let's go back home to Jersey.

I have a soft spot for eerie British dramas (whistle, and I'll come to you being one of the best) but this one is ridiculous. It's from 1972 and is best left to the film buffs. Susan Hampshire is beautiful. No one can hold a candle to Frank Finlay who performed a small version of Van Helsing, but was left criminally unused otherwise.