Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

iluvraphael 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.

Coventry 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.

mastrolilli 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.

bupbup96 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.