Thgis is supposedly a remake of the 1978 film PIRANHA directed by Joe Dante and written by John Sayles but right from the opening scene you're aware of how similar it is to the original movie . There's a pre-title sequence of two horny teenagers breaking in to a facility and getting consumed by a school of piranhas that ends with a light in the darkened tacitly being turned on just like in the original . Did I use the word " similar " ? My mistake the word I meant to use was " identical " . And so it continues . Not only does the film use the identical structure of the 1978 film it reproduces nearly every scene word for word and scene for scene almost to the point of sharing the same camera angles There are a couple of very small modifications . One is the role reversal of characters who were male in the original whilst here they are female characters . In fact the one original scene is inserted featuring a female character and a wannbe film director is inserted in to the narrative and the fall out of having one of the characters die is quickly forgotten about . Wouldn't this be a major plot turn and lead to a warning that the lake is infested with deadly fish ? This film has a very low average rating and some of the commentators feel it deserves a higher mark . Perhaps it does but that would be down to it basking in the glory of the original film and perhaps I would have been better copying and pasting my review of the 1978 movie . Same difference

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.

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!

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!