mickspix2054 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.

Nickolaus Pacione 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.

GL84 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.

wrlang 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.