Piranha

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.

RELEASED IN 1995 and directed by Scott P. Levy, "Piranha" chronicles events when genetically-enhanced piranha are accidentally released into a river system in the wilderness north of Los Angeles, which threaten kids & counselors at a Summer Camp and vacationers at a lake resort. A private investigator (Alexandra Paul) and a lonely environmentalist (William Katt) team-up to save the swimmers.

This is virtually a scene-by-scene recreation of the 1978 film, taking place in Southern Cal rather than the heart of Texas. While "Piranha" (both versions) is sort of a "Jaws" (1975) knockoff, it's different enough to not be a rip-off: The story takes place in a river system deep in the mainland and not the ocean; the 'monster' consists of teams of little vicious fish rather than a huge great white shark; the beach sequences involve quaint campground-like beaches rather than major ocean beaches; unlike "Jaws," there's a focus on alluring young women, although "Jaws 2" (1978) delivered the goods in this area as well; and there's more of a sense of adventure and arguably suspense. The tone of the original version of "Piranha" mixed-in amusing elements amidst the horrific mayhem, but this version shoots for a more austere air.

This 1995 version is all-around inferior to the 1978 rendition, even though it's basically the same exact story and both were produced by Roger Corman. Some of the changes, aside from cast and locations, include: A woman (Darleen Carr) is substituted for the scientist (Kevin McCarthy) at the research facility; the curious stop-motion mini-dinosaur featured in the first act of the original is omitted here; there's a new wannabe director character; one of the two babes at the camp dies prematurely; and the filmmakers were more conscious of including racial diversity in the background.

The new locations with sparser foliage are also inferior, as are the women. Although voluptuous Lorissa McComas as Barbara in the prologue is just as good as (or better than) Janie Squire in the original, Soleil Moon Frye and Kehli O'Byrne are rather second rate compared to cutie Melody Thomas Scott and curvy Belinda Balaski, although Kehli is certainly a striking woman.

I suggest skipping this one and viewing the original instead, unless you're a fan of some of the cast members or want to compare the two versions. The 1978 film is just all-around superior.

THE MOVIE RUNS 89 minutes and was shot, in part, at Castaic Lake just north of Valencia/Santa Clarita, California.

GRADE: C+

Detective Maggie McNamara investigates a case of a missing young couple as she runs into Paul Grogan, who lives as far away as possible from the city because he doesnÕt want to meet anybody. Together, they unwillingly unleash a plague of killer piranhas created by the military. The Piranhas attack an opening ceremony for some holiday resorts, where lots of guests are in the water - including GroganÕs little daughter...

A Roger Corman-produced TV Remake to a Roger Corman-produced (and Joe Dante-directed) original. Sounds bad enough to be a warning? ItÕs almost the same movie as the original, and nothing has improved since, in fact, this has to be one of the most unnecessary remakes in the long history of unnecessary remakes. As for the special effects, almost every single shot is lifted from the original which makes this hard to defend for even the most jaded fan. Not only the special effects in this 1995 movie are from the seventies, thereÕs also still no one around to provide a cell phone when you need one. If only the very likeable William Katt were in the original...

According to my fellow IMDb users, the film is a remake. But, since I have not seen the original, I cannot vouge for that. And they also say it uses stock footage from a number of other creature features. Again, I cannot say. But, if you think of it as a TV movie that was made some seven years ago, you cannot possibly expect a classic.

PIRANHA, in my opinion, was not that bad. It was certainly better than some of the other crappy action adventure films with the same plot line. Examples: BLOOD SURF, BENEATH LOCH NESS, PYTHON (the worst movie of all time) and an endless number of others.

You should all seriously give this movie a break. After all, it never wanted to be a classic. Just wanted to be there to give off some campy good fun...if only for a short while. PIRANHA gets 3/5.

I don't know why this is compared to the original. That film was no classic, and at least this one doesn't pull any punches. Indeed, the DVD version is R-rated and definitely not TV fare. Mila Kunis is so young in this that one wonders if it was made earlier than 1995. Anyhow, the story is ridiculous and pretty hackneyed, but William Katt and Monte Markham add credibility. It's always a pleasant surprise when James Karen shows up too. As a cheapie horror flick it delivers exactly what it promises and holds one's interest throughout. Making films like this made Roger Corman a legend, and his contribution to this particular film is probably what makes it work.