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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
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!
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