IMDb RATING
5.5/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
For twelve days in July, 1916, a shark patrolled the waterways of northern New Jersey. This docudrama is based on Richard Fernicola's account of those days.For twelve days in July, 1916, a shark patrolled the waterways of northern New Jersey. This docudrama is based on Richard Fernicola's account of those days.For twelve days in July, 1916, a shark patrolled the waterways of northern New Jersey. This docudrama is based on Richard Fernicola's account of those days.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe identity of the responsible shark has never been conclusively proven. While common legend states that a Great White is the sole shark responsible, some scientists think a bull shark might have been responsible for at least the three attacks in the creek. Others believe a school of sharks may have been responsible.
- GoofsThe end credits contain a few misspellings. For instance, the credit 'co-producer' is spelled 'co-producernas' and 'art director' is spelled 'art directorr' (these two examples are right next to each other).
- Quotes
Dr. John Nichols: I'm a fishman.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Monsterquest: Gigantic Killer Fish (2007)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 27m(87 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content