Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

gilligan1965 This, like "Frogs" (1972) is a great introductory horror film for children who are showing signs of liking horror movies.There's no real graphic violence here; no vulgar words spoken; no real nudity except that which amounts to not much more than what's seen at a good beach with hot women; and, little boys can have their little fantasies about Mila Kunis as a little girl, as I once did as a little boy about Kristy McNichol and Tatum O'Neal; and, Kim Richards.With today's standards, this is the kind of "STARTER" movie that little kids watch before they grow into 'REAL HORROR' movies like...what we 'adults' all watch and love today.It's not a bad movie, it's just 'soft-core' horror for children; and, for adults who just can't hack the way the world really works.I'd like to thank pbrandon074 for his review, which is the reason I watched this movie.Again...It's not a bad flick; and, it's 'very realistic' in the way that the police and politicians act (don't act at all) without any care or concern for people they're paid to protect! :)

Michael_Elliott Piranha (1995) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Remake of the 1978 cult classic by Joe Dante features pretty much the same story as we hit "nature strikes back" mode again. This time out a bad girl and her dorky boyfriend go missing so a detective (Alexandra Paul) goes looking for them. With the help of a mountain man (William Katt) they learn that the government has made some man-eating piranhas and sure enough they've let them loose in a popular lake. Whereas the original film was tongue in cheek in terms of its black humor and violence, this one here plays it rather straight, which is a minor problem. I'm not sure if the production team here, which included Roger Corman, just decided to not try touching the original but a little humor here would have helped things. Without the humor we're left with a pretty standard, made-for-TV horror movie that ups the violence and gore. Outside some stock footage from the original movie, the attacks here are pretty good especially one scene towards the end when our hero is trying to save the day when a group of fish attack him. The rather violent bites will certainly make your squirm and this is preceded by some other nice attacks including one poor soul who leaves his feet in the water a tad bit too long. Katt and Paul deliver fine performances and are strong enough to carry the film. The supporting cast doesn't get much done, although the James Karen (THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD) was nice. Fans of the original really aren't going to find this film topping it in any way but fans of the nature attacks genre will want to check it out as harmless fun.

Akzidenz_Grotesk It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their "badness" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the "Piranha" (1978) original. I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot. This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie!

toxiemite I am not an advocate of Remakes, but I do recognize a good one! This is not a good one.Why would anyone bother to remake a movie if they do not intend to improve on the original? Or at least alter it slightly as to merit an "Update"? This version of Piranha is cheaper and nastier than the original.... The Original knew it was Cheap and Nasty and played upon it.... but this movie takes itself seriously. The little 'fishy' effects are worse then the original and the plot itself is identical. This is basically a frame by frame remake... why?It was made for TV and one has to question why they bothered to invest money into this when they could have easily screened a re-run of Joe Dante's original classic! I am sure more people would have stayed tuned for that one. It was obviously a clever little parody of Jaws... this is a tired and lonesome stinker!I give it 1 out of 10 For having the guts to be made at all.