12 Days of Terror

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.