User reviews

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+

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.

Well, it IS near identical. A lot of changes from the original had been made (the doctor minding the piranha testing center being just one of those). Still, I prefer this one. One: it provided more character detail into Paul. Two: this remake's Maggie isn't as "bumbling" as the one in the original (although she's still far from being a decent gumshoe). Three: the circumstance behind the piranhas' poisoning (just in the pool) is more believable than the original (an entire water system in Vietnam). Four: the usage of stock from the original aside, the fact that they left bones after piranha attacks makes it more believable than the original. Five: because they made this look more serious than the original, it actually made it funnier.

It's still a bad movie, but, at least the way they changed it made it a tiny bit better.

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.

The private investigator Maggie McNamara (Alexandra Paul) from Lyon Investigation is hired by the wealthy J.R. Randolph (Monte Markham) to find his niece that has disappeared with her boyfriend. Maggie seeks out the lonely environmentalist Paul Grogan (William Katt) to help her to look for the teenager. They head to an abandoned army facility and Maggie decides to drain the pools to see whether the body of the girl is there. They are assaulted by a woman with a crowbar but they subdue her. However she escapes and soon they learn that the woman is Dr. Leticia Baines (Darleen Carr), who is researching a hybrid species of piranha that is capable to survive in fresh and sea waters for military purpose. Further, Maggie has release the piranhas on the river and they are heading to the Lost River Lake Resort. Maggie and Paul inform the corrupt local Sheriff but Randolph tells him to lock them up since he does not want to jeopardize the party he has promoted to his resort.

"Piranha" is a B-movie with the same storyline of "Jaws". There are ridiculous scenes, like for example, Maggie tasting the water of an abandoned experimental pool. Or the heroine Maggie opens the drain valves without measuring the consequences and causing the death of several people. Or when Dr. Baines dies and Maggie and Paul say that they need to find someone with knowledge in piranhas. Or the instructors of the children camping that do not use the boats to rescue the children, walking on the water under attack of piranhas. It is funny to see Maggie driving the high-speed motor boat at full speed pulling Paul tied to a rope. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Piranha"

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!

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! :)

First off i love the 1978 Joe Dante Directed "Piranha" & i have done since the 90's when i discovered it & got it on video, it's a Cult Classic.

I've just discovered this 1995 Horror Gem, it seems to me although it's a made for t.v production it's still very well made & with a much better polished script than the 70's original even if not as good.

The characters here are given better dialogue & more depth with some back story to them which was missing in the 1978 original, i love Director Joe Dante (Gremlins 1&2,The 'Burbs) always loved his films from young & loved his Piranha but even i gotta admit it that this Remake fixed a few things & polished it up 90's style.

Apart from his excellent casting of the B-movie legends Dick Miller & Kevin McCarthy, this 90's version is often just as much fun!!!! Here though in the cast we have a really good William Katt from the Horror-comedy Classic House (1985), as Paul Grogan & i did like his performance better than that of Bradford Dillman from the original.

Also i preferred the performance of Alexandra Paul (Dragnet 1987) as P. I Maggie McNamara, the cast all seems to be putting alot of Drama into their performances & it really works. Yes there's some pure 90's cheesiness & some boobs that's typical of it's time but it's fun & great at the same time.

The stakes seem higher here & the feel of Danger is strong, this was a very slick & polished production. The cinematography is actually abit better too with a real Summertime atmosphere & colourful look. This 1995 version of Piranha was a very pleasant surprise, yes it used some footage from the original but it fitted in fine & didn't ruin anything & atleast this version didn't copy it completely, not totally beat for beat as we have some other bits going on that pads it out more & makes it feel fresh & interesting. We get a wannabe movie director played by Leland Orser (The Bone Collector 1999) as he's down at the lake filming a commercial there & he has a little side-bit story where he's out on the lake at night with a sexy camp councillor & things get Nasty. The gore is more brutal here too & the attacks seem more frenzied & more dramatic, the tension is high & everything is done to feel more real i suppose & less fantastical.

I definitely noticed the dialogue was way better & definitely much more depth for our main stars.

A very Decent & well made 90's B-movie Remake of a 70's Cult Classic B-movie.

"PIRANHAS" is just as good as the original & definitely better than the dull "Piranha 2:Flying Killers" & still better than the fun but silly 2000's Remake & it's sequel!!!

Watch it as a double bill with the 1978 original as a good night of summertime thrills.

Piranha 1978 is a film I think is underrated. Sure it's not jaws or anything but it's a fun 80's flick that started my fear and love for piranhas. This film is just lazy in every way possible because it's literally the exact same movie that actually uses footage from the original 1978 film! Hell there's even a shot where they use their own handmade piranha puppets and while fake it would've made the film more enjoyable, but what was the point of them if your just gonna copy and paste footage from the film. That's the main killer of this movie, the story is nothing new because it's literally the exact same story, when your doing a remake you gotta add something new to the source material but yet it doesn't. Don't waste your time with this one and go watch the original 1978 film, or watch the 2010 remake if you want to lose a brain cell.

Although many will disagree with me here, I have to say that I enjoyed this film and actually prefer it to the original. The original is too old for me to appreciate it and even though this movie is made for TV it is still preety good and is well acted and directed. The plot is slightly different in this one but i like it. The script is exactly the same but does have some extra decent one-liners and funny parts, especially with that idiotic director who fancies that girl 20 years younger than him! That had me laughing for ages! William Katt was very good in this movie and is in a lot of other movies i've seen him in. He deserves to be in much better, well-known movies than this one. Also good is the guy who plays Randolph (the bad guy in the movie.) The music is preety good as well. Although it ends a bit weirdly and there isun't much development between the two main characters as there was in the original this is still good entertainment for a Saturday night in. So go check it out!

The story is a little different than the other versions but the results, naked people being eaten are the same. I am sad that Lorissa McComas didn't get ANY credit for being in the movie and dying spectacularly in the opening scene. She committed suicide a couple years later. RIP LM

Despite being old, this remake of the classic "Piranha" movie is actually not all that shabby. And I would say that it is actually better than the 2010 remake (aside from the effects in the 2010 version).

The story doesn't get any easier to follow than it is presented in the movie. The government have been experimenting on piranha fish for insertion into Russia and the East. Yeah, seems plausible enough, right? Haha... Then the project was shut down, but the experiments continued. Now, years later, the piranha are accidentally released out into the nearby river. Wait, it gets better, this new strain of piranha can live in both salt and fresh water, as well as warm and cold water. And the piranha are hungry... There, story summarized.

"Piranha" actually manages to keep you entertained throughout the entire feature length, and you want to see what happens next.

As for the cast in "Piranha", then there were some pretty good names, such as William Katt (playing Paul Grogan) and a very young Mila Kunis (playing Susie Grogan). There are some other familiar faces on the roster as well, and of course an always welcomed face on the screen, James Karen (playing the governor).

"Piranha" is worth checking out if you like cheesy horror movies. If for nothing else, then watch it for the hilarious song that plays when the end credits are rolling over the screen; killer mutant piranha...

Oh, and notice how the film makers used the same footage of the swimming piranha school over and over again, and sometimes would just zoom in, but still use the same shot. That was wonderful. And also, take notice of the eagle-like cry the piranha emits when they attack, that had me laughing out loud. Priceless entertainment right there.

You should check out this 1995 version of "Piranha" if you have watched the original or the 2010 remake. Trust me...

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.

I think that this was one of the most trite films ever made. No redeeming features at all. Even my 12-year-old son said it was laughable. May be a good candidate for the next generation of "Mystery Science Theatre."

If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the "underwater shots" of the "fish" "swimming". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.

One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as "The Greatest American Hero" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something.

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.

This movie has a TERRIBLE reputation... but, frankly, I've seen far worse, and, lately! (I know, hardly high praise-- heehee.) I was mainly interested because it featured 2 of my favorites-- William Katt & Alexandra Paul (SIGH!), plus, with Monte Markham as the slimy corporate developer baddie, it wound up with no less than 3 PERRY MASON alumni (I can't believe that was a coincidence). Katt played Paul Drake Jr. in the first 8 Raymond Burr TV-movies in the 80s, Paul was in the first 2 movies after he left (along with William R. Moses-- I was always surprised that she didn't stick around longer), and Markham starred in the ill-advised revival in the early 70s.

All I can say is... it HELD my attention, and I managed to plow through it with fewer breaks than a LOT of Corman-produced films. (It was funny how they actually made reference to several of his 70s films in the dialogue, including one of the "women in prison" films.)

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...