Piranha

It's tough to commend any actual parts of the '95 remake of Piranha, but it's actually quite fun to group watch purely because it's so dated. Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’... It's tough to commend any actual parts of the '95 remake of Piranha, but it's actually quite fun to group watch purely because it's so dated. Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole.

**_Inferior imitation of the 1978 original_** Genetically-enhanced piranha are accidentally released into a river system in the wilderness north of Los Angeles, which threaten kids & counselors at ... **_Inferior imitation of the 1978 original_** 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. "Piranha" (1995) 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+

Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend for horror / thriller fans. This is almost beat for beat the 1978 movie with some unecessary nudity and explosions thrown in, and just a little gore... Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend for horror / thriller fans. This is almost beat for beat the 1978 movie with some unecessary nudity and explosions thrown in, and just a little gore as the original was surprisingly absent of it. I do feel like they casted better this time around, and the effects are decent enough that they showed off the fish some this time and it wasn't terrible. The movie still looks like it's from the late 70's early 80's, but with more of a 90's feel. I get the impression that they were trying to preserve a classic look. The movie does some weird re-writes on scenes from the original, but it's not as bad as keeping the "secret military project" angle. The problem with keeping it is that it's supposed to be from the Vietnam war era, but there is almost 20 years difference between the original and this re-make. This also has a very young Mila Kunis in it, which makes it the superior version because, even if she wasn't a better actress then (possible), she's a better actress now than any in this movie. I feel like a lot of potential was squandered on doing a remake instead of a reboot on this one, but it was still a good watch.

<em>'Piranha'</em> is a waste of time, unless you haven't seen the 1978 original I guess. It's a shot-for-shot remake, more (a bad) reenactment really, aside from a few strange changes; no spoilers, b... <em>'Piranha'</em> is a waste of time, unless you haven't seen the 1978 original I guess. It's a shot-for-shot remake, more (a bad) reenactment really, aside from a few strange changes; no spoilers, but one involving an animal and one involving a weapon are particularly odd decisions. Aside from those mentioned bits, the rest is quite literally a repeat of the Joe Dante movie; down to the dialogue. Some of the characters are changed in terms of gender (mainly from male to female, pointlessly if unimportantly), though the main bunch stay the same. Alexandra Paul and William Katt are both forgettable. The main takeaway from the cast is Mila Kunis, who makes her acting debut. The effects for the piranha are good, but that isn't a positive because producer Roger Corman recycled them from the first film. Makes you wonder what the point of this all was. It is a very bad (made-for-television) movie, more originality or at the very least a more creative rehash would've went a long way. It is still better than <em>'Piranha II: The Spawning'</em> though.