Something I wrote about three years ago… I wasn’t exactly nuanced in my approach back then. At any rate, hopefully it’ll get you lot talking, as there’s quite a lot wrong with the film I didn’t even mention.
Unfortunately I was at the disadvantage of seeing the full 88 minutes (as if even the director thought “Nah, nobody’s gonna take a full 90 minutes of the garbage.”) of this film whilst fully conscious, so that may bias my judgement somewhat as to whether it’s any good or not. Which of course it isn’t. What Piranha 3D is, is a bloated, decomposing, horse’s corpse – being flogged mercilessly by a team of satanic screen-pimps – to a target audience of imbeciles, voiding it’s bowels over them as they squeal with glee having paid to see a film “so shit that it’s good”.
Don’t get me wrong, you can have a good time watching terrible films, but you can’t make such a film like that on purpose, which is one of many places where this film went wrong. It’s shit, it knows it’s shit, and it tries to market that fact, which only succeeds in making damaged goods look nigh-on syphilitic. If an absurd film takes itself seriously, and makes an effort, then it is funny, like the Blade trilogy, or a Steven Seagal film (it’s my shameful secret) but not like this.
Piranha 3D (or just “Piranha” if you don’t participate in the farce of glasses) is the lowest common denominator, pumped out in order to make the greatest amount of money with the least amount of thought/talent/cost. As if to prove my point further, the title screen of the film reads only “Piranha”, as if 3D was only tagged onto it as the whole Avatar craze reached its peak, because “It’s what the punters want.” Not a story which couldn’t have been written by a toddler, or three dimensional characters I could give a toss about. That’s my major problem with 3D in general though, it’s used by greasey haired producer-types to distract from a films inherent SHITNESS.
There are literally only 2 and a half reasons that this film didn’t score a zero, but thanks to the limitations of this technology, it will be a list of 3.
- Ving Rhames. Ignored by a bunch of punk-ass kids to their cost, which detracts from the realism somewhat. If Ving Mother-fucking Rhames tells you to get out of the water in real life, you get out of the water. His character does undoubtedly have the coolest moment of the film.
- The crazy old man played by the crazy old man from Back to the future. Like Ving Rhames, he’s under-used, kept in the back in favour of predictable cliche characters from other teen horrors. He is bat-shit-insane enough to present an enjoyable on screen presence though, however briefly he appears.
- It’s undeniably slightly more enjoyable to watch this film during the slaughter of the decadent, ignorant 40 year old teens (none of the actors playing the young people are actually young), but it’s perverse. The only reason this large section of the film works is because it is built on an hours worth of teaching the viewer to hate their fellow human beings, and to bay for their blood (and for relatively innocuous reasons too – drinking and sex are vices pretty much everyone shares but we’re told here we should be condemning them to death). It’s not ‘enjoyable’ really though, certainly not afterwards, when you consider what you were actually hoping would happen. So one of the few moments of ‘entertainment’ (I’m using that word very loosely) is one that ultimately makes you hate yourself.
Literally everything else in this film is tired cliches, contemptable idiocy, and fraud. I was promised a film, but all I got was an 88 minute labotomy.
This film doesn’t deserve to be in cinemas, it should be confined to super-market bargain bins, where only imbeciles and sex offenders will fork out to masturbate over the gore.
I give it 2/10, not as bad as Knight and Day (0/10) which actively made me want to kill other people, but it was bad enough for me to wish death upon myself.
NB: I also don’t do scores out of ten these days – they’re arbitrary, reductive and generalising.