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.

Recreation of the real-life events that unfolded over two weeks off the coast of New Jersey in 1916 when five people were attacked, four fatally by one or more sharks. Mostly faithful in its interpretation, dramatisation is understated and the sub-plots are inconspicuous which allows the film to focus on the extraordinary sequence of events. While "Jaws" may have drawn its inspiration from these events, it's surprising that it's taken almost ninety years to bring them more directly to celluloid. More sophisticated than its meagre TV budget, the attack scenes are well staged and photographed, and while the acting is sometimes stilted, the overall collective effort does make entertaining and compelling viewing.A script writer couldn't have conceived a better tale; one, perhaps two rogue, apparently territorial sharks claim the lives of four bathers within a fortnight, with a fifth victim narrowly escaping death. Following a brace of fatalities in the surf, crusty sea captain (played here by the durable John Rhys Davies) witnesses the migration of a shark up the Matawan creek, but his penchant for the drink has most skeptical when he attempts to raise the alarm. Three more bathers fall foul, before the film diverts to the hunt for the killer, including the imbibing sea captain and an equally corpulent and eccentric out-of-town lion tamer and apparent jack of all trades.Still an intensely curious case, "12 Days of Terror" builds the momentum effectively, with authentic looking location work and period set design. While the acting can seem forced at times, Rhys Davies and supporting actor Dexter (who bears more than a passing resemblance to Cary Elwes) restore some balance, giving measured performances, appropriate to the mood. Experienced director Jack Sholder has excelled with the limited resources at his disposal, and displays impressive regard for portraying fact and blended fiction to affect a motion picture, moreover than simply a docu-drama. Highly recommended.

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.