everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.)

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!

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...