Sonny loves sharks.He feeds them and swims with them.But when a group of fisherman set out to exploit and kill the sharks Sonny and his carnivorous friends take bloody revenge."Mako:Jaws of Death" by William Grefe is an average animal attack film with unspectacular death scenes.The performances are weak and there is no suspense.The cinematography is murky and there is very little blood.However some underwater shots look impressive.I have seen "Whiskey Mountain" by William Grefe and I must say that I enjoyed that movie more than "Mako:The Jaws of Death".Still if you are into low-budget 70's horror "Mako" is definitely one to check out.6 sharks out of 10.

Well, I discovered JAWS OF DEATH in the late 70's, at the Brady cinema in Paris, a little theatre specialized in horror movies, cheap ones. A cinema every movie lover in Paris knew at this time. I really enjoyed it. I did not really know Richard Jaeckel at this moment and I was surprised by this B feature. I don't understand that many IMDb users talk about Jaws - Spielberg one, I mean...Nothing to do with it.Last week, so many years after the first viewing of JAWS OF DEATH, I watched STANLEY, directed by the same William Grefe. For me it's no more no less than a transposition - or I should say a first scheme of JAWS OF DEATH...but with snakes instead of sharks. A WILLARD like movie where a man prefers the company of animals, wild, dangerous or disgusting beasts, to the human beings associates. And, after all, he is probably right...And no IMDb user seems to have noticed that, the similarity between the two films.That's strange, isn't it?

I just purchased a DVD copy of this film, having subsisted on an ancient VHS tape for a few years. Alas, the DVD appears to have been mastered from either very poor stock, or from a VHS tape. The opening sequence is almost unwatchable. Even the credits appear blurry. The picture is dark and seems out of focus. I don't remember it being this way when I saw it in the theaters. Then again, I was six, so what did I know? I still like the psychic/psychotic connection Jaeckel has with the sharks, although I could definitely lose the hokey "shark medallion" sequence, which accomplished nothing. I've ordered a new DVD edition put out by a different company. Both versions sell very cheaply on Ebay. We'll see how it goes.

This is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. My wife, some friends, and I rented this because we thought we could at least laugh at how bad it was. We were wrong.The basic story has some, but little, promise or value, while the plot development and screenplay are extremely forced, contrived, and, in a word, cretinous. The basic story itself is ludicrous but could have been the core of a much better film had the development been handled with at least some skill, and had the makers not thrown in seemingly haphazard, unexplained scenes or focused on apparently irrelevant events that seem destined to have some role only to be forgotten half way through. The directing, acting, etc., are all utterly dreadful and the cinematography is little better than that of a home-made movie. Richard Jaeckel, befitting his vast experience compared to the other cast members, is a bit better than the others and only he sometimes has some dim spark that brings his acting up to a mediocre level. The other "actors" are universally abysmal. I could add more, but this film really isn't worth much effort.