Piranha 3D Review.

French Poster: Retro coolness.

Piranha 3D is the latest film by French writer/director Alexandre Aja who is fast becoming a genre Swiss army knife for Hollywood; to date he has written and directed five feature films and one short. Haúte Tension (or Switchblade Romance) was his second and is a tight, efficiently worked horror that while not perfect (because of massive plot holes) is totally enjoyable and stylistically thrilling; blood on a white carpet never seems to fail. Helped along by an emergence of other French horror films in the past 7 years such as ‘Martyrs’ and ‘Inside’, the big boys in Hollywood took notice and he was able to jump over to America for a remake of Wes Craven’s ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ and now a remake/re-imagining/retelling of 1978’s Piranha.

We all know what to expect, right? It’s a campy horror comedy straight out of the 80’s and it runs with it. Leave your brain at the ticket stand because you won’t need it. The plot centres on Lake Victoria in Arizona during spring break weekend. A resident of the town, great cameo from Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws), is fishing in a deserted part of the lake when an earthquake hits, opening a cavern under water that is home to thousands of prehistoric piranha. Chaos ensues as the town’s police department try to save the thousands of teenagers who only care about getting very drunk and having lots of sex.

Piranha 3D isn’t really a remake of Joe Dante’s 1978 classic at all, it’s more of a re-telling. The plot differs somewhat and it seems quite fresh when we look at the genre over recent years but it definitely keeps the spirit of Dante’s movie. The original, while being loved by many, could have been seen as a blatant cash in on Jaws from three years previous; it was more gory and definitely more fulfilling to horror fans. Aja’s production and budget is definitely giving us something here that we just don’t get in B movie stuff today like ‘Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus’, ‘Mega Piranha’ or the upcoming ‘Sharktopus’ that mix bad production with bad actors and bad plots and expect to be enjoyable and if you’ve seen any of those you’ll know that’s just not the case, they are truly awful.

Piranha was John Sayles’ first film as a screenwriter and his second was ‘Alligator’ in 1980. Another monster movie that focused on a large alligator living beneath New York City. There was obviously a theme starting to occur around that time and Sayles knew his topic. He kept them serious at times but with light hearted moments, not taking yourself too seriously is key to these sorts of films or they can descend into farce very quickly. Aja and his co-writer Grégory Levasseur have completely embodied this spirit and their script is to the point with the necessary elements to keep it entertaining and the running time flies over. Piranha 3D is far superior to films like Deep Blue Sea or Lake Placid in that it can flick between serious and tacky entertainment rather well and those aforementioned films definitely have a problem doing that.

The comedic moments are clearly visible and it feels as if Aja knows the sort of audience this is targeted at and he’s playing directly to them, lot’s of comedic moments among mass hysteria, seriously, this film has some of the most manic/chaotic scenes ever in a horror movie with literally hundreds of extras bloodied up and dismembered in the water and on the beach. There in lies the references to exploitation cinema of the 70s and 80s and they are abundantly present; scantily clad (although naked a lot of the time) females being graphically killed get prime screen time in Piranha 3D. This film goes one further and shows a Piranha chewing out a man’s penis, gross? Yes, but in context and with the right writing, absolutely hilarious.

The shoddy 3D is the biggest detractor from the movie, it’s a post production job and it’s one of the better ones but definitely looks more like Clash of the Titans than Avatar. There isn’t that much depth or immersion and sometimes things double on screen and give a cross eyed feeling. Headache inducing. Aja claimed that the 3D cameras were too restrictive and so he shot in 2D but it hurts the movie although maybe not in the long run. It’s fair to say that the added ticket price of 3D may make this more successful, budget wise, leading to more of these type of films being made and who can argue with that? Some bad CGI does make an appearance and that’s almost unforgivable in this day and age. It seems like they got to the end of shooting and the budget had gone but to be honest it only adds to the ‘so bad it’s good’ feel. The performances are really quite solid, not amazing, but they get the job done. Elisabeth Shue as the sheriff of the town and Ving Rhames as her deputy stand out but Jerry O’Connell as the porn producer/director is also very funny as is the cameo from Eli Roth as a wet t-shirt emcee who over acts his heart out and Kelly Brook is surprisingly good, even if she couldn’t manage an American accent.

The narrative is strong, it’s formulaic but tightly wound and there are a few scenes which have genuinely tense moments, which wasn’t expected. There are sub plots of romance and a tyrannical porno maker but there is so much packed into the run time that they fit nicely and do well to break up all the chaos. Alexandre Aja’s style is textbook but he’s adapted well to Hollywood, he’s making ultra gory genre films that English speaking countries usually don’t have the guts to. You can keep your remakes Michael Bay, I’ll stick with Aja, Roth and co.

The Bottom Line:

Aslong as you go in with the right frame of mind Piranha 3D is a lot of fun and you’d have to be devoid of a sense of humour to not come out of the cinema with a smile on your face. It’s this years Drag Me To Hell and a definite guilty pleasure; schlocky, exploitation horror goodness even if you aren’t a fan of the genre but if you are, you’re going to love the in jokes. 4 out of 5.

P.S. Just so you know what all the fuss is about: WOW.

In case you wanted to know what all the fuss is about: WOW.

Raping and decapitating happened.

The watching of A Serbian Film has finished, a few hours ago now to be exact. I wanted to leave this till I had slept on it. It is like nothing I have seen before, some scenes in this film surprise me that they weren’t cut by sensors. BUT, I wasn’t shocked, disgusted. yes bit shocked, no. I think we go into films like this knowing that the worst of the worst can happen and most likely will. I think the fact that many of the characters within the film explained their reasons for their actions constantly (especially ‘Vukmir’) detracted from some of the allegories and metaphors that the director put forward in his interview with Empire. That’s not to say they are no longer valid or not there, it just means that his film is not as deep and meaningful as he thinks it is.

It’s hard to say whether you liked a film like this or even give it a rating, I survived it, barely. With many “Oh my God”‘s and “Urgh”‘s, not in shock but in disgust that the Director went there. Maybe not even the fact the Director went there but that at the fact that these characters were doing these despicable things, is that not a compliment towards the film? The story was just okay but the twists and turns were excellent as was the acting and at some points I actually sympathised with certain people. This is no cheap, low budget horror film and it shows. I think my feelings towards this film are summed up by an American blogger/critic who writes for Cinematical called Scott Weinberg, he says: “I think the film is tragic, sickening, disturbing, twisted, absurd, infuriated, and actually quite intelligent. There are those who will be unable (or unwilling) to decipher even the most basic of ‘messages’ buried within A Serbian Film, but I believe it’s one of the most legitimately fascinating films I’ve ever seen. I admire and detest it at the same time.” He then goes on to say that he will never watch it again. I can’t promise that, I think it was too powerful to only watch once, although I can guarantee it won’t be for a very long time.

Rape and Decapitate.

So, I am about to watch 'Srpski film' or, in English, A Serbian Film. Look.

It is, of course, a film from Serbia and I posted on Twitter a couple of days ago that I had reservations about even downloading this and having it on my computer. It is allegedly the most vile, brutal, exhausting and disgusting film that pretty much exists right now or maybe has ever existed. A reviewer on YouTube said that it was ‘the Cannibal Holocaust of our times’ and that ‘it includes everything that those pussy films like ‘Hostel’ leave out. This will just seem alien for mainstream audiences, to the average film goer ‘Hostel’ and ‘Cabin Fever’ etc are the goriest things they will see.

I have seen some pretty sick stuff, by that I mean: I have seen graphic depictions of rape in film; I have seen children beat up in films and I have seen teenage girls being abused and tortured in films (Jack Ketchum’s The Girl Next Door in which that last doozy happens). This film, however, supposedly has a simulated rape scene between an adult and a small child. Too far, you say? Shocking, you say? I thought so too.

But, if we look at films such as The Brown Bunny (Vincent Gallo’s film which has an unsimulated blowjob between himself and actress Chloe Sevigny) or Caligula (Tinto Brass’ film which has numerous blowjob and ejaculation scenes) then is this so shocking? Does it then become porn when real sex is happening? Of course not, porn is to titillate and films shouldn’t do that. In Caligula’s case the director is a sleezeball and did intend it to be just fucking dirty. The inclusion of a child would suggest “too far” and “shocking” but context is everything and I am willing to give A Serbian Film a shot after reading an interview with the director in Empire magazine this month. I’ll type it out for you…

Describe the plot for the uninitiated.

To secure money for his family, a retired pornstar plunges again into the depths of hardcore production, only this time, his diabolical employer has unthinkable terrors in store.

Where did the idea come from?

Through exhausting conversations about horrible real-life cases happ[ening in Serbia, and our desire to capture our feelings about today’s world in general.

So why is it called A Serbian Film?

It’s a very direct but multilayered title. The exact reason is placed within the film, but there are other meanings. It is about Serbia’s perverse need to be nationally exploited by it’s lunatic leaders, but also about the free world’s craving for compassion porn. It is a satirical take on the product you expect from us. The honest, emotional product we give you here, A Serbian Film, is suprisingly something that you can barely take.

So this is a political allegory…

The major allegorical take was top treat real life as pornography. In order to lead a normal life in our country or any other country, you have to become a prostitute and sell your soul and ass in the name of feeding your family. You are raped from birth, and the raping doesn’t stop even after you’re dead. For you it may sound like torture porn, but to us, it sounds like our life.

Is it fair to say that your film is controversial?

Everything is called “controversial” nowadays. It’s controversial to swear or to smoke. Soon it will be controversial to go to church unshaven.

How would you defend the film against those who say it goes too far?

It’s almost inappropriate for me to talk on the level of “too far”. What does that mean? What was “too far” 20 years ago is now considered daring and classic. Art (life) has become sterilised, filmmakers (people) are chickening out of dealing with the traumasof their own time. We have decided to face the beasts of our own time – if they go too far, we follow them.

Are there films that you find shocking?

There shoudl be no term “shocking” in art. Shock is for grannies with baskets full of puppies. Art should have a mission to push boundaries and expand the limits of perception. There are no films too shocking, only too uninteresting.

I think he sounds like a smart guy and is obviously passionate about what he’s doing. I fully understand and mirror his opinions on art and that nothing can be too shocking. If we saw a painting of someone being raped does it stop being art and stop meaning anything deeper? I don’t think so. I am a firm believer that in some cases what you don’t see is more shocking than what is on screen (Michael Haneke’s Funny Games 1997 & 2008 represent this with all killings or beatings taking place off camera) but when you are trying to get a reaction from the audience maybe extreme depictions on screen is the way to go. Can you make the audience think about or take meaning from an act of violence they aren’t even seeing? Would you watch this film?