It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

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! :)

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.

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!