User Reviews

It's all too easy to just nonchalantly label "12 Days of Terror" as being just another imitation of the legendary horror blockbuster "Jaws" and exclusively focus on its shortcomings. Especially when numerous and reliable sources state that Peter Benchley himself based his novel on these same facts that occurred in the summer of 1916. You can't really accuse a movie of being a rip-off when it's based on facts, not even when it comes more nearly 30 years after a milestone movie that commercialized these same facts. "12 Days of Terror" is an admirable and modest made-for-TV production that doesn't even dream of competing with "Jaws". Director Jack Sholder ("The Hidden", "Alone in the Dark") has more than enough experience to realize he plays in an entirely different league than Steven Spielberg and merely just attempted to shoot a solid and factual shark movie. As far as I'm concerned he succeeded. The movie's main trump is undeniably the reasonably accurate depiction of the 1916 setting. The events occurred nearly 100 years ago, so you already know beforehand that this movie won't primarily revolve on sexy young chicks in minuscule bikinis. We received quite a lot of bloodthirsty shark movies recently ("Spring Break Shark Attack", "Red Water", "Shark Attack 1 to 47", etc…) but there were actually just simple excuses to show hot chicks and hunky boys parading in the latest beach fashion. This film is different. Admittedly the characters are still rather one-dimensional, but at least they're not complete retards. During the first days of the unusually hot summer of 1916, the New Jersey beaches become overflowed with tourists that wish to forget all the daily issues, like that horrible war being fought in Europe. The warm currents also bring another and very unwelcome visitor to Matawan in the shape of a hungry and extremely aggressive shark. The authorities still refuse to close down the beaches even after two fatal accidents, but when the unstoppable animal even swims up the creeks in search for more victims, courageous life guard Alex plans to catch the shark himself. "12 Days of Terror" is a thoroughly unsurprising and unspectacular thriller, but it's never pretentious or boring. Due to budgetary restrictions there aren't many special effects, exhilarating attacks or enchanting underwater shots to admire. Actually, we only properly get to see the shark's fin and even that looks fake. The acting performances are okay and the early 20th century decors are convincing enough. It's, simply put, a harmless little TV time-waster.

When a series of vicious animal attacks strikes surfers in his beach- front town, a lifeguard joins others intent on hunting down the predatory beast responsible that continually manages to escape capture and prey on the townspeople.

This here is an absolutely paltry and worthless horror effort that really has almost no business being called a horror film. The biggest issue with this one is that the majority of the film's running time is devoted to the different people around the town trying to understand why the beast is around and whether it should be considered an emergency big enough to actually get others involved despite the hero protesting, and rightly so, about what's going on to the oblivious folks in charge about the severity of the situation, especially after there's been several attacks. This is a consequence of the film's origin, trying to remain true to the real-life story so this one gives off a pretty boring feel during these parts and which turns out to drag the film along into endless loops of him running to everyone hoping to get a different answer to his requests which halts the plot pretty significantly. There's some decent stuff here, though, in the attacks which remain true to the original story in getting kids attacked by the creature so this one has several scenes of kids being attacked with effort made to show them interact with the shark prop and have a limb or body part shown in its mouth, as well as shots of their mutilated and gnawed bodily aftermath which is nicely commendable. However, even that is somewhat problematic with the attacks being edited in such a haphazard way as to make it impossible to determine what's going on and thus not getting any thrills out of it. Packaged together with a decidedly lame pace that even glosses over a possible plethora of action scenes with the town out hunting the creature which is instead given as a narrated montage that turns the scene more boring and dull than it really should've been, overall this is a really bland, banal shark horror.

Rated PG-13: Violence, some Language and numerous attacks on children.

I have been obsessed with great white sharks since I saw Jaws when I was a very small child. I have seen the movie 'Twelve Days of Terror' and read the book as well, and both are utterly fascinating. Like it was said in the book, this incident in 1916 was a 'once in a lifetime' deal. Nothing like this has ever been happened before (and if it did, it was NEVER documented) and probably will not ever happen again, at least not in our lifetimes. I whole heartedly believe that the culprit back in 1916 was a juvenile great white shark. There are scientists that believe it was a bull shark, or a group of sharks. The shark that is on the cover of 'Twelve Days of Terror' was later autopsied and 10 to 15 pounds of human flesh were found inside. There is no doubt that it was a real, true man-eater that attacked all of those people (I believe it was 6 people total, and only one survived.) A shark that preys on humans (which is not a natural food source for sharks of any species) truly, in my opinion is a freak of nature. Very fascinating.

In an industry saturated with shark themed movies it takes a lot to impress me. What needs to be done is throwing a curve ball, taking the shark movie and adding an angle or something to set it apart from the rest. The Scyfy channel to their credit have done that what with the likes of the Sharknado movies, Toxic Shark, Snow Sharks etc but with little success.

12 Days of Terror however does it successfully, kind of. You see it's based upon a book/true story and set in 1916 so immediately its set apart from the rest. That however is the best thing about it.

Starring John Rhys-Davies as the only recognizable face 12 Days of Terror certainly looks the part and the period but alas is about as exciting as a National Geographic special on sloth racing.

Seriously, I was bored to tears. Sure it looks great, the cinematography is above par and it's handled competently but I couldn't get past how dull it all was. At no point was I gripped, did I care about the characters or really find myself invested in the film.

Points for effort, but little else.

The Good:

John Rhys-Davies

Fantastic setting

The Bad:

Frustratingly lifeless

The movie is factually based, if you read the actual events that took place in Jersey in July 1916 you will see that the majority of the film stays true to events that happened.

As far as Alex being the one that stops the shark eventually, I think that is a little off-story, he is present and witness to all the attacks and uses that to tell the story in much the same way that the character of Rose tells the story of Titanic, yet she was never an actual passenger on the ship in real life.

Having read the events thoroughly, I then enjoyed the film immensely, it has no over the top CGI and relies heavily on the acting and storytelling. I can certainly see where Peter Benchley may have been inspired to write the novel Jaws.

Please don't go into this thinking that the film is a Jaws ripoff, it's not, it's the prequel!

12 Days of Terror is a dramatization of real events during the 1916 oddity where a shark cruises the NJ shores and tributaries for 12 days apparently looking for people to munch on. Some say that the concept of Jaws was taken from this true story. Many of the same Jaws characters are there, the business people and authorities who won't listen because money is involved, the few who understand the seriousness of the problem, and the 'main course' public who rely on the authorities to keep them safe from something they don't understand. Some discussion over just how many sharks were involved was glossed over since humans are a large meal and sharks don't need to eat every day because of a slower metabolism. Good acting, relatively good camera work, interesting scenery, and a passable script.

This is a made for TV movie based on a series of shark attacks that took place off the New Jersey shore in July of 1916.

Anyone who remembers all of the awful TV movies from the '70's and '80's, with their clichéd scripts, amateurish direction, horrible acting and complete lack of anything that could ever be mistaken for production values, will know what I mean when I say that this "horror" story belongs to that era.

The entire production comes across as if a bunch of 12-year-olds who had just seen "JAWS" decided to make a copy of it, wrote a script, got a hold of some equipment in a pawn shop, and convinced the worst community theater members they could find to play the characters.

John Rhys-Davies has been involved in one bad TV movie after another, and the only reason for this that I can figure out, is that he must work cheap; the last half-way good acting job he did was in "SHOGUN" in 1980, and in this he is simply awful...and he's the best one in this cast.

Someone named Jack Sholder is listed as the director. Going by this effort he seems to be Ed Wood reincarnated...either that, or he was somewhere else while this was being produced.

All in all, I have to say that if you have an hour and a half free, and if you spent it banging your head on a wall, that would be less painful than watching this genuinely horrible horror movie.

Almost gentle version of Jaws, with all key elements still intact; the business officials refusing to close the beach, the one man fighting public opinion, the grief stuck mother.

Here's the thing, Peter Benchley based Jaws upon this true story. So whether you consider the 1916 attacks or Jaws as the 'original' is up to you. But to my liking the film has one to many 'replica' lines from the Spielberg classic. Including the salty sea-dog of a shark hunter.

Don't get me wrong, this is actually a very enjoyable film. But don't expect to watch Jaws twixt the Waltons, its better than that; including elements of politics of the time (America's continued resistance to join the war in Europe) and the class structure of rich and poor.

Interesting, very interesting.... but would you pay to see it? No, I guess not.

This movie first caught my attention while looking at Amazon.ca. I saw the trailer for it and immediately went on a search for it. Finding it, I bought it to satisfy my curiosity about the story of 1916.

The story is a really vivid one and truthful. Colin Egglesfield does a wonderful job as Alex Ott, and he has a wonderful supportive cast behind him.

Being based on a true event during 1916, you might expect the acting to be a bit blasé, but the cast really pulls this movie off in an unexpected way. I believe this to be one of the most realistic movies about sharks out there today.

It puts Jaws and its sequels to shame as well as many other shark movies out there. Jaws was scary for its time, but this being based on a true story makes it even more terrifying yet.

I enjoy the story of the events but I also love where it was filmed and the scenery. Its so beautiful as a backdrop and it really does this movie a whole lot of good.

I can't imagine having been living when this had happened, not knowing what on earth was eating these swimmers. The turn of events is real enough and makes me not want to go into the ocean any time soon.

This film is based on fact and actually has a very jaws feel about it, It's a shame it was made a TV movie as this could've been a whole lot better and I think it would've been successful to, Saying that it's very watchable and it gives you a very good understanding of where the ideas for Jaws come from

Its one of the worst docu-dramas i've seen. Acting sucked, the romantic subplot was just shoe-horned in there and the one life guard knowing everyone made no sense. The actual except for Charles Brutter and the life guard as well as Lester Stillwell and Stanley Fisher and Joesph Dunn-his brother did not know each other! But hey let's add more drama to it! While its not a Jaws Rip-off...its still bad. If you want a really good docu-drama on the 1916 shark attacks check out blood in the water! That one does a much better job at telling what actual happen and they connect all the attacks via an unnamed reporter rather than "OH THIS LIFEGUARD KNEW ALL THE VICITMS!"

I saw this movie and wishing it is on DVD. I have seen all the shark movies that are made except for Open Water and Shark Attack I. I want to see Open Water but this movie is one of those that is damned accurate to the book as well as well to the events of what happened. Dr. Fernicola, thank you for writing this book and providing the movie to go with it. It was about time to see this movie become made. The question of how they managed to make the shark for this one. It is one that rivals Red Water. I am very pleased with this movie; and I used to read a lot of books about shark attacks and had a morbid interest for what happens to people that were attacked by a shark. This movie adds more of a sting to JAWS in the book form. I am reading both books at the same time. This TV movie was one that I will remember for many years to come.

Sure, it's not Jaws but isn't bad. The special and practical effects aren't bad. The acting is pretty good and the scenes are set up well. It wasn't trying to be Jaws but telling the real story Jaws is based on.

This movie is amazing, I caught it flipping trough channels and I had to keep watching. I did some googling and the movie is not 100% accurate in who was doing what at the time of the attacks, but it sure is close enough. Surprisingly the most dramatic scenes are also very accurate historically, and I guess it's because of the book.

That's what makes it so great, you get a feeling of realism that's missing in a lot of shark movies. They use a lot tricks to create suspense used in Jaws, and they still work great here. You can sometimes see where costs where cut, but it happens in scenes that don't affect the story too much.

If you start watching and don't like it, you owe it to yourself to watch it to the end, because it just gets better and better. A great story, and a good example of a movie based on acting instead of special effects.

Recreation of the real-life events that unfolded over two weeks off the coast of New Jersey in 1916 when five people were attacked, four fatally by one or more sharks. Mostly faithful in its interpretation, dramatisation is understated and the sub-plots are inconspicuous which allows the film to focus on the extraordinary sequence of events. While "Jaws" may have drawn its inspiration from these events, it's surprising that it's taken almost ninety years to bring them more directly to celluloid. More sophisticated than its meagre TV budget, the attack scenes are well staged and photographed, and while the acting is sometimes stilted, the overall collective effort does make entertaining and compelling viewing.

A script writer couldn't have conceived a better tale; one, perhaps two rogue, apparently territorial sharks claim the lives of four bathers within a fortnight, with a fifth victim narrowly escaping death. Following a brace of fatalities in the surf, crusty sea captain (played here by the durable John Rhys Davies) witnesses the migration of a shark up the Matawan creek, but his penchant for the drink has most skeptical when he attempts to raise the alarm. Three more bathers fall foul, before the film diverts to the hunt for the killer, including the imbibing sea captain and an equally corpulent and eccentric out-of-town lion tamer and apparent jack of all trades.

Still an intensely curious case, "12 Days of Terror" builds the momentum effectively, with authentic looking location work and period set design. While the acting can seem forced at times, Rhys Davies and supporting actor Dexter (who bears more than a passing resemblance to Cary Elwes) restore some balance, giving measured performances, appropriate to the mood. Experienced director Jack Sholder has excelled with the limited resources at his disposal, and displays impressive regard for portraying fact and blended fiction to affect a motion picture, moreover than simply a docu-drama. Highly recommended.

While I thought the movie was good. In the fact that it was filmed well and had good acting in it. I still felt it was a "Jaws" rip-off. The movie had great references to actual true life accounts of the incidents. Because of the way the story was played out I felt some what cheated out of a movie that could have captured the events of that era more accurately.

I'd recommend seeing it as its not a bad movie at all. Just don't expect to see much more than a Jaws remake as far as the story line goes. To give it a little more credit than Jaws though I'd have to say the special effects were awesome. The action scenes of the attacks were totally believable. Over all I'd say if you are into sharks and action flicks this one is well worth seeing.

Also read the book this is based on as when you compare to two of them you might end up coming across a spoiler but I am going to be careful with this. They didn't film this in the actual location where the book mentioned so two points off for that one but you have to wonder what Redd calls Shark Creek.

All in all this movie is very researched as the other reviewers pointed out as it's based on the book. (ISBN-13: 978-1585742974) and you can look this up for yourself. Those of you calling this homo erotic no it's not and this is an era film as you do have to look into that era a bit as this was during the events of World War One.

This book been around for many years and when I was hanging out in video stores I had managed to get some renting this based upon my own insight about the film as the 1916 Shark attacks also worked into the framework of Jersey Shore Shark Attack as the character mentioned the shark attacks.

I suggest you guys get the book of this then watch the movie and see what you conclusions you can draw from this. Though the director of Nightmare On Elm Street 2 was behind this so I am hoping he doesn't gay this up. I don't understand why they had a horror director doing though. Animal Planet hope you're reading this because I am hoping that the director read the book before he went into it because of what he did with A Nightmare On Elm Street 2. Okay I understand he wanted to do it because he was an educator and this doesn't fall too far from his educator roots. Why I am not giving a lot away with this because I read the book the movie was based on.

Don't accuse this being a Jaws Ripoff like what others said because I am guessing the conclusion the other had said; it's based off a nonfiction work.