SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Diane Ruth Visionary director Jim Wynorski has taken what might have been a boring monster fest and created a truly extraordinary science fiction film. With a creature that is amazingly horrifying, this motion picture is made even more frightening by Wynorski's stunning skill in building suspense and creating an environment of breathtaking fear. Filmed beautifully in the spectacular scenery of Hawaii, the lovely locale is a perfect contrast to the living hell it becomes as the characters fight for their very lives. Michael Madsen is superb in his role and it is some of his finest work in years, perhaps since Reservoir Dogs. While the film can be intense at times, the blood and gore never become gratuitous but still have tremendous shock value. Unrelenting in its horror and overwhelmingly terrifying, this is a film that is refreshingly unique and satisfying.

WakenPayne Movies like this are very difficult to rate. On one hand they are deliberately made to be awful and somehow deliberately acquire the status movies like The Room and Plan 9 get for being "so bad it's funny". Now I don't believe movies like this have that kind of charm to them but in my opinion when done right (...Whatever the hell THAT means) they can be a ton of fun to watch. This is one of them - Pirahnaconda.While on a B- movie shoot and a science expedition are in the jungle they come across a creature from ancient folklore that only comes out of hibernation every few decades a giant snake with razor-sharp teeth and other features of a pirahna to cause havoc and kill people. While this is happening both the only survivor of that science expedition (Michael Madsen) and the film crew survivors are kidnapped by domestic terrorists or something and soon they have bigger things to worry about such as the fact that 2 Pirahnaconda's are after them.If you know this kind of movie then you'll expect some goofy acting (at best) and having a really tongue-in-cheek tone as well as horrible special effects (to be fair, the Pirahnaconda doesn't look THAT bad... It doesn't look that good either) so for what it's going for - it's not that bad. If you have clear expectations in mind (if you don't the theme song sums it up - horrible, campy, yet fun)

highwaytourist OK, I'll try to sum it up. First, a Captain Ahab wannabe scientist discovers a half piranha, half anaconda in Hawaii. He gets one of its eggs and escapes, only to be kidnapped by some criminals whose activities are unexplained. Meanwhile, a low-budget film crew is shooting a lousy horror movie, though it can't be as terrible as this movie. The criminals kidnap part of the film crew to hold them for ransom, but they run into the piranhaconda, and then a second piranhaconda shows up for good measure. It's never really explained how a piranha-anaconda could create a hybrid breed, and it's also never explained how it wound up in Hawaii, which is not native to either creature. The film stars Michael Madsen as the mad scientist/hostage and Rachel Hunter as the diva star of the terrible movie, both obviously in it for an easy paycheck. It was produced by none other than Roger Coreman, who made several terrible science fiction films in the 1950's. Here, he proves that he hasn't lost his touch- he can still make terrible science fiction movies. In place of unconvincing zipper-backed monsters, we have unconvincing computer animated monsters, complete with laughable death scenes where even the victims seem to have difficulty keeping straight faces. The Sci Fi Channel strikes again, strikes out that is.

TheLittleSongbird To be honest I wasn't expecting to enjoy Piranhaconda, the concept was rather cheesy though had potential to be entertaining, the film didn't exactly look promising and the amount of 1s added to the IMDb score pre-release further added to my dubiousness. SyFy are also notorious for bad to bottom-of-the-barrel movies(though there are a few tolerable ones too), though no matter how terrible most are I find them compulsively watchable and always watch to see if they ever do anything tolerable, otherwise unless they are horrifically or insultingly bad I do revel in their badness. Imagine my surprise when I found Piranhaconda to be one of SyFy's more tolerable movies. It is not perfect by all means, and has a lot of problems but does improve on assets that bring their movies down in the first place.Visually, it doesn't look too bad. With SyFy, you would expect hackneyed editing, scenery that doesn't give a sense of authenticity, dull lighting and awkward camera angles. In regard to those assets though, Piranhaconda is generally one of their better-looking movies. The editing and camera work is mostly focused and the scenery is striking. You'd also anticipate laughably awful special effects. On the other hand, the Piranhaconda looks alright, there are a few moments where it does look fake, but overall it delivers what the film promised(part-snake, part-fish, all killer), it does look menacing and the movements are less choppy than other SyFy creatures, in fact I was impressed at the amazing speed it moved at. My problem with the Piranhaconda wasn't to do with the design this time. It was to do with how it was developed, you don't find out much about its origin and how it came to be in the jungle.In all fairness though, that is true of the human characters as well. Thankfully they are less annoying than SyFy movies like Miami Magma and Seattle Superstorm, but not only are they developed unconvincingly, how did three groups exactly manage to be in the jungle at the same time as each other, but especially the scientist and hot chick-type characters they are very clichéd. The script fares better, less stilted, less aimless and less contrived than most SyFy fare. While some of the more humorous spots are not as funny as they could've been, the script does have some pleasantly witty spots. The story is also an improvement, though my feelings were still mixed. It doesn't make the mistake of being dull pace-wise, is light-hearted in tone and reasonably enjoyable, with some fun, tense and not too predictable deaths with a higher body count than usual. However, the final 10-15 minutes are rather rushed, the sub-plot about the scientist character being interested in a flower that seemed thrown in and many questions, such as how the scientific group did not know anything about the Piranhaconda or why Rachel Hunter's group stayed in a place where it would be easy for the Piranhaconda to kill them.Musically, I was also pleasantly surprised after hearing many SyFy scores that were sluggishly in tempo, derivative or overbearing. The music here has an adventurous vibe to it, and while I would've preferred that the Piranhaconda theme was without the lyrics, which came across as schlocky to me, the theme itself is one of the catchier SyFy movie themes. The acting is better than usual. It was a pleasure to see Michael Madsen and he is literally unrecognisable, but he seemed bored in comparison to his other roles. Although I wish she had more to do, I did think Rachel Hunter was quite good, and while I've read from some that Terri Ivens was rather long-in-the-tooth for the hot chick role I can't deny that she was gorgeous. But in the most fun role of the movie that is more than the hot girl in a bikini, it was Shandi Finnessy who took the acting honours.All in all, I didn't love it but I didn't hate it. Piranhaconda was problematic but I did find it one of SyFy's more tolerable films. 6/10 Bethany Cox