MovieChat Forums > Piranha 3D (2010) Discussion > 5.5 out of 10 are you kidding me, are yo...

5.5 out of 10 are you kidding me, are you kidding me?


this whole website is a sham, a joke, and should never be taken seriously. this film deserves at least, at least a 7 out of 10 rating. People on here suck and don't know what good movies are. this film is such a blast. it has such great energy, such originality, and is so entertaining when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances. this film dares to take chances with hard core violence, and hard core nudity, and a lot of nudity.

reply

😭 Obviously YOUR the sham.

reply

no, I'm not a sham, but YOU, YOU ARE THE SHAM! FUC# OFF!

reply

I gave it a 6. I thought it had some funny and entertaining moments. But I thought it dragged a lot in places. But hey.

reply

Agreed! But that's imdb for ya :/ I gave this film an 8

Signature.

reply

yeah, this film is such a blast of creative energy. it has so much originality, ingenuity, charm, guts, creativity, and excitement. they put so much effort, hard work, care, attention to detail to make it the best it can be, and they made it so much fun with all the entertaining images, sounds, emotion, and exciting scenes. It's relentlessly entertaining from the 30 minute mark on and you can tell the director and everyone else involved on the production side really cared about the finished product. I've never seen a film like it. It goes into overdrive when it comes to a hyper overwhelming sense of terror and suspense once the piranhas start attacking everyone. I've never seen a massacre like that in any other film. It's on such a large and profound scale and they make that feel really important to the viewer which is so important in a film like this. It feels important to me because I cared about the characters and the massacre felt so real and also it felt like a real epidemic like some kind of disease that affects and kills a lot of people. This film is an 8 out of 10 star film. imdb is cool in that anyone can review and rate a movie and have their score count and officially tracked and kept on here but it's bad for the same reason because so many dumb people make movies ratings end up too low and other movies ratings too high. I mean I've never seen shaun of the dead but I seriously doubt that it's up there with the best comedies of all time which is what it would be if we were going on it's ridiculously high imdb rating of around 9.0 out of 10 stars. don't you agree?

reply

Yes, I agree this movie is under rated. I gave it 7/10??. It kinda detox your brain. If you enjoy watching this genre from time to time, try Eight Legged Freaks.

reply

I rate it a 6, above average, a lot of fun. Not a great or awesome movie but definitely worth multiple viewings. I have seen it at least 10 times. At least.

edit: I have rated many movies I own a 6 or 7, but that doesn't mean I think they're bad movies. Everyone has their own scale which I think is the real issue with the ratings on IMDB, along with fools who just rate 1 and 10, or think 5 is the lowest rating they can give...

🐙

reply

yeah but 6 is not above average. 6 is still in the middle or average of 1 to 10. so you are saying that a 6 or 7 star movie on imdb you think is a pretty good and good movie, 6, and 7? because I've heard a friend of mine say that a movie is not bad and not good, it's pretty good.

yeah that's an interesting idea that some people on here rate movies just rate movies 1s and 10s and it's also an interesting idea that some people only rate as low as a 5 for movies that they think are bad movies.

reply

This film is so bad that its so good. I gave it a 7/10

reply

[deleted]

"yeah, this film is such a blast of creative energy. it has so much originality"

It has none of either.

It's a remake of a film that parodied another film. That's about as far from originality as you can get.

At best it's got some inventive grue, but even most of that is copied from Final Destination sequels. A 6 out of 10 would be generous.

reply

Completely right! IMDB is full of critics (amateur and profesional) and most of the time, the boring movies are rated higher than the entertaining ones... SADLY

reply

that is sad. boring movies should not be rated as high as entertaining movies.

reply

I loved it from beginning to end and for that reason rated it a solid 10/10. I don't compare movies to each other and rate based on notes and other meaningless information: I rate a movie based on my personal experience watching it and this film was just awesome through and through. So there.

reply

while i would disagree on most things you wrote, one thing we surely can agree on: the 5.5 rating is indeed very surprising.

a mate recommended it to me and i had my doubts, but damn that was one great comedy horror movie. i also watched it in 3d, of which they made very good use of.

personally i rate films not for their intellectual degree, but rather if they achieved what the makers set out to do and how good they are within their own genre.

some (extreme) examples:

drama:
oldboy 10/10
spoorlos 10/10
12 angry men 10/10
21 gramms 1/10

horror:
the thing 10/10
the strangers 1/10

superhero films:
guardians of the galaxy 8/10
green lantern 1/10

dystopia
escape from new york 8/10
the purge 1/10

etc etc.

so, with that said, i think piranha 3d achieved exactly what it set out to be: a great comedy horror movie, based on the 70s original b-movie.

i really don't see, how this film did not reach it's goal.

what did people expect, when they went to a movie called "piranha 3D"? were they surprised by the comedy? it's piranha 3D for christs sake. who would be so dumb to even try to take it 100% serious? it's not the 70s anymore, where you could pull stuff like that off. did they expect a true remake of the 70s film? that would be equally stupid. even if the latter was the case, how did those people not be delighted by all the nods towards other films from that time & genre. the boat wasn't called "barracuda" out of accident, if you know what i mean.

one more thing, even though it's OT:
"die to get wet". damn, that was so friggin funny.

reply

what things did you disagree with me on? you're wrong about it being impossible to pull off making a piranha type film serious in a decade other than the '70s.

reply

"what things did you disagree with me on? you're wrong about it being impossible to pull off making a piranha type film serious in a decade other than the '70s. "

well, that's one thing for starters. in the 70s you could pull of films like "worms" and similar. well, you could DIRECT something like that nowadays, but unless it is meant to be ironic, nobody would go out and watch it.

apart from that, i don't agree that there is a problem with the imdb ratings in genereal. in 95% out of all cases i make up my mind about a film and when i go over here to rate it, my rating is within a range of 1.5 points +- when compared to the imdb ratings. yes, there are some spikes, where i completely differ, but those are rare exception, where in my eyes people are simply satisfied too easily. for example "her", which i rated 2/10, while the general census, not only here but on rt etc., is in the 7-10 area.

"when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances."

while i agree, that is no matter of the recent times. that has always been this way. not only in the horror category, but in all categories. each and every month 60-100 movies get released which are absolutely and uterly worthless.

reply

how can you say that nowadays you can't make a serious movie like Piranha??? what, because we are suddenly so aware of movies that we can't accept a serious Piranha movie? or they have to make a meta horror movie in order to be clever enough??? and also, if your point is true, then it's contradictory to also say that all movies have always been the same because then that would mean that also, in the '70s you couldn't direct a serious Piranha movie.

you can direct any kind of horror movie nowadays and it can be successful. audiences aren't suddenly more aware of other movies any more than they ever have been for the most part and audiences are not suddenly more smart or savvy than they've ever been for the most part.

and how can you say that you usually agree with the imdb ratings? there are plenty, plenty, I mean countless movies that are really overrated on here. all you have to do to find out this is go to the imdb's "top 250 movies of all time list" to find this out. on there they have some really marginally good movies. they completely overrate almost all of Christopher Nolan's movies. heck even freakin' The Prestige is on there, and no one talked about that movie. also, movies like American history x are on it. one of the biggest examples of how imdb gets ratings wrong is they don't even have the sound of music on the top 250 list, the sound of music!!!??? and L.A. Confidential is not of the all-time best films ever made. and Predator is not even on this list??? and they rated Vamp U waaaay too low. it should be at 7.0. also do not disturb should be at 7.0. one example that glaringly and resoundingly proves that imdb's ratings are wrong and way off is they have under the skin at about 5.6, the same rating that the freakin' teenage mutant ninja turtles movie???!!!

reply

we are over the monster-fish, killer-bees, killer-worms era. not that people have gotten smarter, but that ship has sailed.

"all movies have always been the same"

rofl. where did i write that?

"you can direct any kind of horror movie nowadays and it can be successful."

so, if i release attack of the killer thumbs, it will be a hit? wow, lucky me.

"how can you say that you usually agree with the imdb ratings?"

because for the most they make sense.

"there are plenty, plenty, I mean countless movies that are really overrated on here."

maybe you simply have a rather bad taste.

"all you have to do to find out this is go to the imdb's "top 250 movies of all time list" to find this out."

point proven.

"sound of music"

great film. maybe not of your taste, but a great film.

"heck even freakin' The Prestige is on there, and no one talked about that movie. also, movies like American history x are on it."

very well deserved.

"they completely overrate almost all of Christopher Nolan's movies."

considering the ones where he wrote the script, there is not a single stinker in there. maybe man of steel, but apart from that? flawless track record.

"L.A. Confidential is not of the all-time best films ever made."

it isn't, but it is pretty darn good.

"Predator is not even on this list??? "

i take your word for it that it isn't.

"and they rated Vamp U waaaay too low"

might be. haven't seen it.

"they have under the skin at about 5.6"

counting my 1.5 tollerance in accountance, i see no problem here.

"the same rating that the freakin' teenage mutant ninja turtles movie"

yeah, that one's pretty off. the TMNT remake have been a 1/10, i agree.

reply

I said and you agreed with me and said, "when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances."

"while i agree, that is no matter of the recent times. that has always been this way. not only in the horror category, but in all categories. each and every month 60-100 movies get released which are absolutely and uterly worthless." that means that "all movies have always been the same."


to say that the monster fish, killer bees era's ship has sailed in recent times is incorrect because you also said that "while I agree, that is not matter of the recent times. that has always been this way."

yes, you can release attack of the killer thumbs or anything you want to and it will be successful with the right script, the right actors, the right music, the right directing, the right tone, the right marketing. any movie can be successful if done right.

maybe you simply have a rather bad taste. see, I can do that too. you shouldn't attack me for no reason, when I didn't attack you. it's hurtful and unnecessary and immature. also, what is bad taste when taste is subjective and not factual? also, rating movies isn't subjective, it's certifiable and provable. otherwise why would anyone care what a critic said about a movie, if the review and rating is just based on opinion?

exactly, the sound of music is only rated at 8.2 on here. 8.2??? it's a masterpiece that everyone agrees is one of the best films ever made, yet, it's only at 8.2, it should be at, at least 9.2.

The Prestige and American History X??? not very well deserved of their rating on here or their being on the top 250 films of all time list on here. if a movie like American History X should be rated the same or better than it, then it should be Primal Fear, and American History X should not be rated at 8.2 or higher. It should be at about 7.0.

yes there are a few stinkers in Nolan's filmography: The Prestige and Inception.

exactly, good, so you agree with me on L.A. Confidential being greatly overrated on here and not deserving of being on the top 250 of all time films list on here. I thought it was horrible and really boring.

so, do you agree with me that Predator should be on this list?

good finally we agree completely agree on a movie being ridiculously overrated on here.

there are countless other films which should be rated a lot higher than they are on here. Like Liquid Sky, the princess bride, spaceballs, roller blade, Crowley, True Romance, The Terminator, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Raising Arizona, The Last Boy Scout, The Evil Dead, all the Friday the 13th films, Hellraiser, Evil Dead 2, Martyrs, Salo, Cannibal Holocaust, A Serbian Film, etc. and just look at all the ridiculously overrated movies on here. movies like freakin' lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, Boondock Saints, etc.

reply

"I said and you agreed with me and said, "when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances." "

no, i did not.

"yes, you can release attack of the killer thumbs or anything you want to and it will be successful with the right script, the right actors, the right music, the right directing, the right tone, the right marketing. any movie can be successful if done right. "

you want me to take that seriously?

"also, rating movies isn't subjective, it's certifiable and provable. otherwise why would anyone care what a critic said about a movie, if the review and rating is just based on opinion? "

yes, it is. you might want to rate simply by your taste alone, but then why debate at all?

"exactly, the sound of music is only rated at 8.2 on here. 8.2??? it's a masterpiece that everyone agrees is one of the best films ever made, yet, it's only at 8.2, it should be at, at least 9.2. "

what does it matter? 8.2 says "exceptional", 9.2 says "exceptional". if it had gotten a 5 then i could see your point.

"The Prestige and American History X??? not very well deserved of their rating on here or their being on the top 250 films of all time list on here. if a movie like American History X should be rated the same or better than it, then it should be Primal Fear, and American History X should not be rated at 8.2 or higher. It should be at about 7.0. "

because you say so?

"yes there are a few stinkers in Nolan's filmography: The Prestige and Inception. "

you gotta be kidding me. you might not LIKE those films, but disregarding their quality is just ignorant.

"exactly, good, so you agree with me on L.A. Confidential being greatly overrated on here and not deserving of being on the top 250 of all time films list on here. I thought it was horrible and really boring. "

again, that's you taste, but nobody in their right mind can say that it's not a great movie.

"so, do you agree with me that Predator should be on this list? "

i agree that predator should have a great rating, whoch it has. what do you care if it is in some top 250 lists? so it is onbly top 500. does that make the rating less valuable?

"good finally we agree completely agree on a movie being ridiculously overrated on here. "

we don't.

"there are countless other films which should be rated a lot higher than they are on here. Like Liquid Sky, the princess bride, spaceballs, roller blade, Crowley, True Romance, The Terminator, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Raising Arizona, The Last Boy Scout, The Evil Dead, all the Friday the 13th films, Hellraiser, Evil Dead 2, Martyrs, Salo, Cannibal Holocaust, A Serbian Film, etc. and just look at all the ridiculously overrated movies on here. movies like freakin' lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, Boondock Saints, etc. "

see above.

reply

you can say you didn't say that but you did. all you have to do is look at your post from Jan. 21, in it you said,
"while i agree, that is no matter of the recent times. that has always been this way. not only in the horror category, but in all categories. each and every month 60-100 movies get released which are absolutely and uterly worthless."

which was in response to me saying, "when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances."

so yes you did say that.

so it was contradictory for you to say that just nowadays you can't make a movie like Piranha(2010)in a serious way because as you said it's already been done in every movie genre always.

yes, I do want you to take that seriously, as there are just as stupid of movies coming out in theaters nowadays. movies like fifty shades of black.

no, rating movies is not subjective. If I rate just based on my taste alone then that wouldn't be right because that would be based on opinion. you have to know that rating movies can be done in two different ways: 1. based on your opinion and 2. based on film reviewing and rating criteria which you learn from taking film appreciation and critique classes. it's a science. I'm not debating with you based on my movie tastes. I'm stating facts about these movies.

what does it matter, what does it matter that the sound of music is at only 8.2???!!! it matters a lot because it totally takes away the integrity and professionalism and legitimacy of this website. it makes it so where with just that one false rating this website is not trustable when you want to find out how good a movie is. 8.2 is a long way from 9.2. it's all relative because you take shaun of the dead, which is ridiculously overrated on here at about 8.5 and then you look at the sound of music at 8.2 and then you can see how wrong that the sound of music's rating is. and 1 rating point means a lot when there are 10 rating points. and you can't say that the sound of music isn't one of the top 250 movies of all time. that would be beyond stupid and ignorant.

about primal fear and American history x. No, not because I say so. what I said about those movies is based on fact. Like I said before, film critique is a science. it's factual and certifiable and provable. And the prestige is not that good of a movie at all. it's very forgettable. the only reason why it's rated so high on here and the only reason it's on the top 250 movies of all time list is because of all the Christopher Nolan fanboys rating is way too high.

about the prestige and inception: "you might not LIKE those films, but disregarding their quality is just ignorant." that is wrong. no one, no one talks about the prestige ok? if it was so good, then people would talk about it. inception was the most overrated and still the most overrated movie of all time. it's way too complicated and unenjoyably convoluted. and it has an arrogant feeling and attitude to it of we're smarter than you and if you can't figure it out then that's your problem and you are stupid, and it has this superiority feeling to it which is really disrespectful and dishonorable to all the audience.

about: "exactly, good, so you agree with me on L.A. Confidential being greatly overrated on here and not deserving of being on the top 250 of all time films list on here. I thought it was horrible and really boring. "

"again, that's you taste." again, you're wrong. saying that la confidential is horrible and really boring is not based on my taste. it's based on facts.

"but nobody in their right mind can say it's not a great movie." that is just your opinion. so, it's not a fact and it's not correct because la confidential is not a great movie.


"so, do you agree with me that Predator should be on this list? "

i agree that predator should have a great rating, whoch it has. what do you care if it is in some top 250 lists? so it is onbly top 500. does that make the rating less valuable?

it doesn't have a great enough rating, it's only at about 7.0. it should be at, at least 8.0. and it's especially annoying and horrible and wrong in relation to Die Hard being on the top 250 movie list and Predator not. and it's especially annoying and horrible and wrong that Predator has a much lower rating than Die Hard. uh, yeah obviously it being in just the top 500 makes it less valuable of a rating because it's rating dictates where it lies in a top 500 movie of all time list.

"good finally we agree completely agree on a movie being ridiculously overrated on here. "

"we don't." yes, we do. I was talking about the teenage mutant ninja turtles remake.


reply

as i said, "not only in the horror category", which is not the same thing.

piranha and similar movies can not be accepted in a 100% serious manner, because people while still stupid a) could not take it serious and b) are over the "killer bess", "killer worms" ..etc era, just as they are over the flight catastrophy genre.

but you are forcing to repeat myself, which is tiring and boring.

so i'll keep it short.

yes, rating should not be irrational, but yours clearly is. id one does like a film, does not matter in regards to the judgement iof the film is a good film.

also, your obession with ratings is more than odd. it does not matter, if a film is 8.1 or 9.2 or even 7.1. this site has a community + critics base rating system. it's not a scientific approach. that's why the imdb rating might differ drasticly from metacritics and RT. nevertheless, it is a silly approach to say that a film that is rated around 7, deserves around 8, because most people trasnlate the rating anyway into e.g. crap, mediocre, good, great and exceptional. some might use more attributes and some might less. in my case it is 1-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10. someone else might disect the ratings differently. but obession over .5 or 1 point? ridiculous.

"no one, no one talks about the prestige ok? if it was so good, then people would talk about it."

soo, by that logic all newer films are better than all older films. people talked a lot about the counselor .. mostly badly, but according to your definition it is vastly underrated. nonsense.

"nception was the most overrated and still the most overrated movie of all time. it's way too complicated and unenjoyably convoluted."

yeah, to YOU. again, completely taste related.

etc etc etc

thanks in advance for simply repating yourself in what you would most likely consider as your next "reply". ;)

reply

you said, "while i agree, that is no matter of the recent times. that has always been this way. not only in the horror category, but in all categories. each and every month 60-100 movies get released which are absolutely and uterly worthless." so you did say, "all movies have always been the same"

which was in response to me saying, "when most horror films nowadays are boring, by the numbers, and don't take any chances."

you said, "as i said, "not only in the horror category but in all categories," "which is not the same thing." but actually it is the same thing as saying "all movies have always been the same," because not only in the horror category but in all categories means, not just horror movies but all movies.

fuc# you.

you said, "piranha and similar movies can not be accepted in a 100% serious manner, because people while still stupid a) could not take it serious and b) are over the "killer bess", "killer worms" ..etc era, just as they are over the flight catastrophy genre."

You're wrong about those two things because, and you proved yourself wrong by stating this, all movies have always been the same which means that the same killer worms or killer piranha horror movies that were made in a serious way that were made in the '50s didn't stop people from making serious horror movies of the same kind in the '80s. just like how the same killer worms and killer piranha horror movies that were made in a serious way in the '80s didn't stop people from making serious horror movies of the same kind nowadays or in the future.

how would people get to the point where they are over the killer bees killer worms type of horror movie done in a serious way?

and why would people not be able to take a serious Piranha movies nowadays?

and if they are really over this kind of movie then how come they still make serious, slasher movies nowadays?

movie ratings should not be irrational but yours clearly is and that's a problem. you for some reason think that inception is a great film and so is the prestige but you are wrong about both of those things. those movies are just ok, but inception is extremely overrated, in fact I would go as far to say it's the most overrated movie ever made. and the prestige, is well, invisible to people, that's how average of a movie it is, and that's why no one knows about it.

yes, it does matter if a film has a 9.2 or an 8.2 or a 7.0 rating on here because I care about this website. but this website has let me down so many times by unfairly rating films on here, way too low or way too high. which proves that this website is a joke and is not a professional website. I used to think it was because I thought that the people in the entertainment industry use it and such. the ratings of a film matter even if it's 1 point because when you compare the rating for a film to another film's rating, the ratings really show their inefficiency and then those film's ratings are not right comparatively. and that's exactly what's wrong with this website, people like you who rate movies not precisely and generally and non thoughtfully. you should be exact with your ratings. one of the reasons why movies on here are rated incorrectly is because people like you give a rating that is just within a range.

you stupidly, ignorantly, and idiotically completely misunderstood my obvious point about the prestige. what I meant was if people didn't talk about it a lot in a good way then it's not that good of a movie. and to say that by my logic that all newer films are better than all older films doesn't make sense, as it's a completely different idea and thing, so it doesn't work as a parallel to my point. it's irrelevant to my point. older films don't get talked about as much as newer films for a different reason than they are not as good as newer films, it's that they are older than newer films, so people have already talked about them after seeing them. also, they have to move on to newer films and then talk about newer films because that's what everyone is watching and talking about after they watch them, newer films because that's what most people watch, they watch newer films.


"Inception was the most overrated and still the most overrated movie of all time. it's way too complicated and unenjoyably convoluted."

"yeah, to YOU. again, completely taste related." yeah, again you are wrong because Inception was the most overrated and still the most overrated movie of all time. And it's also way too complicated and unenjoyably convoluted. all these things are facts and are not opinions.

thanks in advance for simply repeating yourself in what you would most likely consider as your next "reply". ;)





reply

[deleted]

it deserves an 8 out of 10 rating. but on here maybe it will only get a 7, so on here which doesn't give accurate ratings it should be at at least 7. 5.5 makes it seem like it's just an average, everyday, ok, just barely watchable movie. 4 would be unwatchable because it's less than average. so they have it seeming like it's just slightly better than watchable. people on here are so dumb and know nothing about film.

reply