MovieChat Forums > Piranha Part Two: The Spawning (1982) Discussion > Perfectly watchable

Perfectly watchable

posted 14 years ago by spookycopter
15 replies | jump to latest

I went into this expecting a terrible movie of epic proportions. What I discovered was an average schlock horror movie with relatively good characterisation. I didn't find the special effects especially bad. Lots of quick shots. The music wasn't that bad either. Nothing special but I never found it getting in the way like the horrible Dario Argento scores.

The protagonists acted in a way that seemed to make sense and it was a nice easy watch overall. Nothing special, but not a terrible movie worthy of a 4.3.

I also recently watched Zombieland, which is a movie with horrible characters, a script that makes no sense whatsoever, silly motivations for pretty much everything in the movie (and this is 7.8 at the moment).

Also, I preferred this movie to the original Piranha which is very difficult to watch with characters acting in stupid ways and a terrible set of actors.

[–] guileppc 14 years ago

This movie is garbage. I watched it because i wanted to have seen all Cameron movies, i've been warned and i was really disappointed to see how it is bad. The flying piranhas are so ridiculous that they remembered me the bats in the ghost train. The movie doesn't give anything gore, neither action or tension, it's really boring to watch.
Even Henriksen couldn't do anything to save this movie from drowning.
I agree that actors in the first Piranha movie were not top notch, but at least the movie deserved what we wanted to see.

Oh, and Zombieland is marvelous, either you're not an horror fan or have strange tastes, but it's definitely a reference in horror comedy (but i prefer Shaun of the Dead).

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wulfthar 13 years ago

This movie is so bad that it's almost a masterpiece: I'm waiting for the remake of Piranha 2 in 3D. As soon as possible...

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

[–] j-jameson 13 years ago

Ok I have to give my 50cents to this one. I just happened to see Piranha 2 today by accident and didn't have any expectations.

Usually when you go trough the imdb you find people liking the most awfull movies in the planet... well reading this board makes me feel like one of them, because I really enjoyed piranha 2 (haven't seen the first part). I don't think there was anything wrong with the movie, as I like movies that have multiple characters and I found the comedy in piranha 2 quite funny. I think it was also scary and I didn't find the plot of flying killer fishes bad the way it was done. Thumbs up from me, definately atleast 6.5/10 movie on imdb scale.

[–] TDeMona 12 years ago

It's pretty OK. Not nearly as good as the original, of course, but pretty watchable at least to me.

[–] corpus_callosum 12 years ago

agreed.

its not anywhere near a 3.4 rating.

this movie is a lot better than a lot of stuff in the 5.0 - 6.5 range.

i don't know HOW people could be so disappointed with a movie based on the premise of....

PIRANHA WITH WINGS!

really, they were expecting Citizen Kane 2?

its actually one of the better whacky old horror films.
only reason i can think of for such a low rating is that a bunch of people hear its a James Cameron film and somehow expect a masterful high brow movie featuring....

PIRANHA WITH WINGS!

heh. people are so silly.

[–] ilon 10 years ago

its not anywhere near a 3.4 rating.

this movie is a lot better than a lot of stuff in the 5.0 - 6.5 range.

You are saying this because of Cameron. Many movies in 3-5 range deserve much better, but because the bigest blockbuster director is not behind...

[–] corpus_callosum 10 years ago

wrong.
exact opposite.
it's like my post went completely over your head.

other people are marking it low because of Cameron, and thus irrational self hype.
i'm no Cameron fan boy, so his name WOULDn't hype me for it in the slightest.

fact of the matter is....

*** i didn't even know it WAS Cameron *** until almost 2 decades later.
seeing that bit of info here on IMDb.

[–] ilon 10 years ago

Still found it extremely boring when I first watched it, and I watched this film because of the low budget kind of movie, Corman sequel, italian co-production... kind of movies I like that usually have a lower score.

Sorry, but not wrong about my interpretation of the situation, because like your own one, it's just an interpretation or a guess on why it has that rating.

Deal with it.

[–] corpus_callosum 9 years ago

wrong. i completely proved %100 you were wrong about your supposition

you did nothing to bolster your claim at all.

[–] marsdude89 9 years ago

Uh, no, you're wrong because you're saying his opinion is different from what he claimed, as if you are the true person inside his head, reading his mind and knowing what he's really thinking. You can't do that, because it's wrong. You're not in his head, you're in your own head. My opinion is that you're an idiot. Go ahead and try to say my opinion of you is wrong. You'd be... wrong!

Just a wannabe-writer writing

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]