I am not a fan really of the first Anaconda, and was expecting this movie to be worse. Actually I think it is better than the first Anaconda for quite a few reasons. While the story is very predictable, the script occasionally weak but also with enough humour and snappy lines to savour, the direction too low-key in places and the pace uneven, what made Anacondas:The Hunt for the Blood Orchid better was more suspense and less cheese which I appreciated. Also any scenes that needed suspense did have it and in a satisfying amount too. The scenery is splendid, the effects are quite decent even if the anacondas are underused somewhat and the music further adds to the atmosphere. The acting is better for me here too, the leads were likable and efficient enough and at least there wasn't Jon Voight and his dreadful accent to drag things down this time. Overall, entertaining if flawed. 6/10 Bethany Cox
176 Reviews
Perfect, dumb entertainment!
CuriosityKilledShawn30 September 2006
No one really wanted, or asked for, a sequel to the seriously stupid 1997 creature feature Anaconda. But it was a hit (somehow) and you know how studios are when it comes to milking something for all it's worth - yes, Halloween 9 is currently in pre-production! Surprisingly, Anacondas is actually quite good for what it is.
Originally meant to be a direct-to-video production, Sony was so impressed with the dailies that they more than doubled the budget and elevated it to a theatrical release. The budget constraints still cramp its style, compared to A-list studio stuff, but it's the best film it possibly can be.
With a touch more plot, involving a search for an ultra-mega-massively rare flower, called the Blood Orchid, that only blooms every seven years and can unlock the secret to everlasting life, there is a sophistication to the script, rather than plain old slither'n'slash.
So we have a bunch of scientists on an expedition to the unknown depths of the Borneo jungle and it's not off to a good start. They can only afford a ramshackle boat; it's the rainy season and the rivers are mighty treacherous. Also, their boat captain (Johnny Messner) is a gruff ex-Special Forces American, with the cutest pet monkey ever.
Everyone seems to be okay about their perilous quest until they are attacked by big crocs, go over a waterfall and become shipwrecked. Then, when things can't get any worse, one of them is gobbled up by - you've guessed it - an anaconda.
Instead of the traditional one-by-one deaths story, like the first film, there is more conflict and interaction. These characters may not be the best, or the most well written, but the actors do what they can with what they've been given. Messner is especially good, keeping a cool head as snakes prey upon them from every shadow. J-Low-IQ, the hammy John Voight and Ice Cube may be gone (there is a quick reference to them), but fellow Boyz N The Hood alumni Morris Chestnut and E.R. star Salli Richardson are offered up as potential reptile food.
And it just so happens that it's mating season. And the snakes are all up for a big orgy. And guess where the Blood Orchids are? Right above their shagging pit. Oh bloody hell! Luis Llosa made Anaconda in the most simplistic and static way possible. This time Dwight H. Little, the very man who gave us Halloween 4, the epic Steven Seagal movie Marked For Death and err... Free Willy 2, brings strong direction and integrity. It's a darker, more complex film that seriously promises to deliver the goods, but comes up a bit short. If it had been taken a few steps further, then it would have been great. As it is, it's more atmospheric and professional, but still, a bleaker ending, with more gobbled-up characters, would have suited me better.
The snakes themselves look okay, nothing special. Little keeps them hidden for as long as possible, only offering brief glimpses here and there. A snake is an awkward looking villain, so keeping it hidden is probably wiser. There is also, thank heavens, no dodgy animatronics.
Incredibly dumb and unnecessary it may be, but Anacondas is easy, inoffensive entertainment that will surely appeal to some part of everybody's taste.
Originally meant to be a direct-to-video production, Sony was so impressed with the dailies that they more than doubled the budget and elevated it to a theatrical release. The budget constraints still cramp its style, compared to A-list studio stuff, but it's the best film it possibly can be.
With a touch more plot, involving a search for an ultra-mega-massively rare flower, called the Blood Orchid, that only blooms every seven years and can unlock the secret to everlasting life, there is a sophistication to the script, rather than plain old slither'n'slash.
So we have a bunch of scientists on an expedition to the unknown depths of the Borneo jungle and it's not off to a good start. They can only afford a ramshackle boat; it's the rainy season and the rivers are mighty treacherous. Also, their boat captain (Johnny Messner) is a gruff ex-Special Forces American, with the cutest pet monkey ever.
Everyone seems to be okay about their perilous quest until they are attacked by big crocs, go over a waterfall and become shipwrecked. Then, when things can't get any worse, one of them is gobbled up by - you've guessed it - an anaconda.
Instead of the traditional one-by-one deaths story, like the first film, there is more conflict and interaction. These characters may not be the best, or the most well written, but the actors do what they can with what they've been given. Messner is especially good, keeping a cool head as snakes prey upon them from every shadow. J-Low-IQ, the hammy John Voight and Ice Cube may be gone (there is a quick reference to them), but fellow Boyz N The Hood alumni Morris Chestnut and E.R. star Salli Richardson are offered up as potential reptile food.
And it just so happens that it's mating season. And the snakes are all up for a big orgy. And guess where the Blood Orchids are? Right above their shagging pit. Oh bloody hell! Luis Llosa made Anaconda in the most simplistic and static way possible. This time Dwight H. Little, the very man who gave us Halloween 4, the epic Steven Seagal movie Marked For Death and err... Free Willy 2, brings strong direction and integrity. It's a darker, more complex film that seriously promises to deliver the goods, but comes up a bit short. If it had been taken a few steps further, then it would have been great. As it is, it's more atmospheric and professional, but still, a bleaker ending, with more gobbled-up characters, would have suited me better.
The snakes themselves look okay, nothing special. Little keeps them hidden for as long as possible, only offering brief glimpses here and there. A snake is an awkward looking villain, so keeping it hidden is probably wiser. There is also, thank heavens, no dodgy animatronics.
Incredibly dumb and unnecessary it may be, but Anacondas is easy, inoffensive entertainment that will surely appeal to some part of everybody's taste.
Sequel with lots of action,adventures and excitement
ma-cortes29 January 2007
The story combines elements of first film and provides exciting and stirring entertainment .It concerns about a scientific chief(Dennis Ardnt)assigns to his group(Morris Chesnut,Mattew Mardsen,Strickland,Salli Richardson,Eugene Byrd among others)encounter a strange flower called ¨Blood orchid¨that could grant lasting life.They are going out from New York City until Borneo jungle where is allegedly the rare flower.They hire an adventurer(Johnny Messner) leading the expedition by means a boat through the river and a dangerous forest.Meanwhile they confront each other and attacked by a pack of large Anacondas which are deadlier and bigger but the orchid gives longer existence. The giant snakes savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators.
The movie delivers the goods with hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Anacondas appear with outstanding special effects.The giant snakes are majority made by computer generator but also by Animatronics and seem totally alive.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the Anacondas,running,bound and leaps or dangling over a well which contains a snakes nest.The Anacondas ,themselves,of course ,are the authentic stars and they're marvellous terrifyingly astounding and almost totally convincing.Spectacular music adjusted to the action by Nerida Tyson and colorful cinematography by Stephen Windon.The motion picture is regularly directed by Dwight H. Little,an expert action genre such TV movies(24,Prison break,Bones)as cinema(Rapid fire,Masked for death,Free Willy 2,Murder at 1600).The film will like to former(Anaconda with Jennifer Lopez) film fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic.No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes.
The movie delivers the goods with hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Anacondas appear with outstanding special effects.The giant snakes are majority made by computer generator but also by Animatronics and seem totally alive.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the Anacondas,running,bound and leaps or dangling over a well which contains a snakes nest.The Anacondas ,themselves,of course ,are the authentic stars and they're marvellous terrifyingly astounding and almost totally convincing.Spectacular music adjusted to the action by Nerida Tyson and colorful cinematography by Stephen Windon.The motion picture is regularly directed by Dwight H. Little,an expert action genre such TV movies(24,Prison break,Bones)as cinema(Rapid fire,Masked for death,Free Willy 2,Murder at 1600).The film will like to former(Anaconda with Jennifer Lopez) film fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic.No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes.
Bad movie, but since I wasn't expecting much, I can't say I was disappointed.
Li-122 December 2004
Rating: * 1/2 out of ****
As if further proof that I am in serious need of better taste, I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie, not so much because I was expecting anything great but because I'm a sucker for big-studio, jungle-set adventures. The fact that it's got giant snakes can only help, and heck, this movie's own predecessor wasn't half-bad. All things considered, Anacondas was about on par with what I expected: cheese, but reasonably watchable cheese.
In the hopes of becoming millionaires, a group of young, "attractive" researchers hire a boat, whose captain is expectedly hard-boiled and hunky, to take them into the jungles of Borneo in search of the rare Blood Orchid, a flower with the ability to prolong life but the catch is that it blooms for only a six month period every seven years, and they're approaching the last few weeks of that time span. The expedition's boat sinks in a mishap involving a waterfall, leaving the group stranded and easy prey for the freakishly large anacondas in the vicinity.
The title Anacondas suggests probably a bit more than even the movie can deliver, with the first genuine snake attack (barring the opening credits) not even occurring until the forty-minute mark, and even then, it's not for another half-hour until someone from the same group is munched on by one of those slithery reptiles. There's a surprisingly bare minimum utilization of the titular creatures, though I suspect that has a lot to do with budgetary limitations.
If there's anything I expected to be a vast improvement upon the original, it'd be the visual rendering of the anacondas, but they're actually a few steps backward from the already spotty work in the original. For cost-effective purposes, virtually all the effects are CGI, and they're only a tiny bit better than what one would expect from a Sci-Fi Pictures Original. Making the snakes larger also works against the effects, making them goofier and harder to take seriously as a genuine threat.
Worse, the snakes themselves seem a lot wimpier despite those "advancements." The anacondas have been essentially mutated by the Blood Orchid, so they're understandably larger (at least twice so) than the snakes in the original and probably a lot longer as well. Unfortunately, they're also inexplicably much easier to kill this time around. One whack from a machete (used by someone who's never wielded one before in her life) is enough to hack off one of these monstrosities' heads clean off. One of the snakes even manages to explode after being set alight by gasoline and a flare. And correct me if I'm wrong, but when did anacondas actually have teeth?
The movie's various roles and characters are as stereotypical and obvious as one can expect from the genre. There's the hunky male American with his haunting past and he's got a hunky Asian sidekick/first mate. There's the "serious" black guy and the comic relief black guy, the latter of whom is probably the most obnoxious character I've seen in film all year. There's also the serious chick with "depth" and the whiny chick. In performing these roles, the cast is almost all terrible (especially Johnny Messner as the lead), the only modicum of acting talent coming from Morris Chestnut and the promising Kadee Strickland.
While I've done nothing but harp on the movie, the biggest praise I can shower it with is that it's rarely boring. From the lush jungle scenery to the splendid visuals of the snakes right under the surface of the water, Anacondas is at least a movie that's always nice to look at. Even if it's never genuinely exciting or suspenseful, there are a few cheap thrills and a fast pace that doesn't let up. I suspect very undemanding and forgiving genre fans might even like it and it's to them I would even consider recommending this movie. Everyone else should first set their expectations straight.
As if further proof that I am in serious need of better taste, I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie, not so much because I was expecting anything great but because I'm a sucker for big-studio, jungle-set adventures. The fact that it's got giant snakes can only help, and heck, this movie's own predecessor wasn't half-bad. All things considered, Anacondas was about on par with what I expected: cheese, but reasonably watchable cheese.
In the hopes of becoming millionaires, a group of young, "attractive" researchers hire a boat, whose captain is expectedly hard-boiled and hunky, to take them into the jungles of Borneo in search of the rare Blood Orchid, a flower with the ability to prolong life but the catch is that it blooms for only a six month period every seven years, and they're approaching the last few weeks of that time span. The expedition's boat sinks in a mishap involving a waterfall, leaving the group stranded and easy prey for the freakishly large anacondas in the vicinity.
The title Anacondas suggests probably a bit more than even the movie can deliver, with the first genuine snake attack (barring the opening credits) not even occurring until the forty-minute mark, and even then, it's not for another half-hour until someone from the same group is munched on by one of those slithery reptiles. There's a surprisingly bare minimum utilization of the titular creatures, though I suspect that has a lot to do with budgetary limitations.
If there's anything I expected to be a vast improvement upon the original, it'd be the visual rendering of the anacondas, but they're actually a few steps backward from the already spotty work in the original. For cost-effective purposes, virtually all the effects are CGI, and they're only a tiny bit better than what one would expect from a Sci-Fi Pictures Original. Making the snakes larger also works against the effects, making them goofier and harder to take seriously as a genuine threat.
Worse, the snakes themselves seem a lot wimpier despite those "advancements." The anacondas have been essentially mutated by the Blood Orchid, so they're understandably larger (at least twice so) than the snakes in the original and probably a lot longer as well. Unfortunately, they're also inexplicably much easier to kill this time around. One whack from a machete (used by someone who's never wielded one before in her life) is enough to hack off one of these monstrosities' heads clean off. One of the snakes even manages to explode after being set alight by gasoline and a flare. And correct me if I'm wrong, but when did anacondas actually have teeth?
The movie's various roles and characters are as stereotypical and obvious as one can expect from the genre. There's the hunky male American with his haunting past and he's got a hunky Asian sidekick/first mate. There's the "serious" black guy and the comic relief black guy, the latter of whom is probably the most obnoxious character I've seen in film all year. There's also the serious chick with "depth" and the whiny chick. In performing these roles, the cast is almost all terrible (especially Johnny Messner as the lead), the only modicum of acting talent coming from Morris Chestnut and the promising Kadee Strickland.
While I've done nothing but harp on the movie, the biggest praise I can shower it with is that it's rarely boring. From the lush jungle scenery to the splendid visuals of the snakes right under the surface of the water, Anacondas is at least a movie that's always nice to look at. Even if it's never genuinely exciting or suspenseful, there are a few cheap thrills and a fast pace that doesn't let up. I suspect very undemanding and forgiving genre fans might even like it and it's to them I would even consider recommending this movie. Everyone else should first set their expectations straight.
Anacondas The Hunt for the Blood Orchid: Rushed sequel
Platypuschow2 December 2018
Anaconda (1997) was undoubtedly a dumb creature feature, but for what it was it was ultimately harmless take your brain out entertainment.
All these years later the franchise has popped up on my watchlist so it's time to binge it's three sequels.
The Hunt for the Blood Orchid was certainly not the best of starts, but considering the subject matter it also could have been a lot worse.
When a corporation learns of an elusive orchid with potential fountain of youth like properties a party ventures into the jungles to harvest them while they're still in bloom. Of course while there they run foul of our giant anacondas.
It's highly cliched, very predictible but because they played it so safe they both sacrificed any chance of a decent film yet also prevented a bad one.
The lack of budget shows, the cgi in most places is pretty weak and the only notable cast member was the multi talented Morris Chestnut and he isn't even the movies lead.
For what it is it's relatively passable, it's dumb, it's flawed, but it's a movie about a giant anaconda so you bring it on yourself if you go in with high expectations I suppose.
The Good:
Some great shots
Morris Chestnut
The Bad:
SFX are more miss than hit
Comedic relief character is more annoying than funny
Very cliched stuff
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Capuchin monkeys just make everything better
The creators have never actually seen an anaconda before
All these years later the franchise has popped up on my watchlist so it's time to binge it's three sequels.
The Hunt for the Blood Orchid was certainly not the best of starts, but considering the subject matter it also could have been a lot worse.
When a corporation learns of an elusive orchid with potential fountain of youth like properties a party ventures into the jungles to harvest them while they're still in bloom. Of course while there they run foul of our giant anacondas.
It's highly cliched, very predictible but because they played it so safe they both sacrificed any chance of a decent film yet also prevented a bad one.
The lack of budget shows, the cgi in most places is pretty weak and the only notable cast member was the multi talented Morris Chestnut and he isn't even the movies lead.
For what it is it's relatively passable, it's dumb, it's flawed, but it's a movie about a giant anaconda so you bring it on yourself if you go in with high expectations I suppose.
The Good:
Some great shots
Morris Chestnut
The Bad:
SFX are more miss than hit
Comedic relief character is more annoying than funny
Very cliched stuff
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Capuchin monkeys just make everything better
The creators have never actually seen an anaconda before
Bad movie but just stupid enough to enjoy
parkesbrianna27 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Capuchin monkeys and Anacondas are from South America, but I didnt watch this movie for geographical accuracy.
Gail is a stereotypical hysterical woman character which is honestly insulting, no intelligent woman acts like that unless something is seriously wrong with her. Also, Tran dying? But not those other fools? Not believable imho, he seemed like the only knowledgeable person in the gang.
Also why do these people know nothing about the place they're going on an important expedition to? A smart person would do some research, but that being said, the makers of this movie clearly did almost no research either.
That being said, this movie is about a bunch of greedy people going into the jungle where theres a bunch of horny snakes who seem to be out to kill them, I did not watch it for accuracy.
Ridiculous! A waste of time!
marcin_kukuczka10 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen this movie just on the day of its premiere in my country. Hoped to see a film that would keep me on my seat for these 100 minutes but what I felt while watching was BOREDOM and after watching it A BITTER DISAPPOINTMENT.
A group with one deadly ambitious scientist goes to Borneo jungle to find a plant that would prolong life. They are, however, exposed to huge difficulties: O.K. The content seems to be interesting. But what the director made with it is just the opposite - HORRIBLE KITSCH!
The movie is full of ridiculous moments. One of the group members is eaten by anaconda and they decide to continue their quest. Later, as more people die, most of them change their mind and want to go back. The deadly ambitious scientist, however, forces them to continue the search. He suddenly appears to be horribly cruel. I especially hated the scene when he forces those who survived to gather the plant and holds the gun in his hand. Perhaps, it would be better when they made him a terrorist. It would have been more logical. But a scientist who kills people from his expedition? What a silly thing!
And the black guy who all the time screams of panic and fear. Sometimes his behavior was so silly that I thought I would leave the cinema.
The utmost nonsense, however, was the end. "All is well that ends well" Less than half a group comes back from the expedition (the rest is eaten by anacondas) and keep smiling as if they have had a nice trip through a jungle. But the movie ends well. It leaves no sorrow in the viewers... What a kitsch!
The only reason why I rate this movie 2 out of 10, not 1, is the location it was shot in. The beauties of Fiji Island kept me in the cinema till the end. If it hadn't been for this aspect, I would have left the cinema before the end. But the location is, perhaps, the most peripheral aspect in the whole movie...
A group with one deadly ambitious scientist goes to Borneo jungle to find a plant that would prolong life. They are, however, exposed to huge difficulties: O.K. The content seems to be interesting. But what the director made with it is just the opposite - HORRIBLE KITSCH!
The movie is full of ridiculous moments. One of the group members is eaten by anaconda and they decide to continue their quest. Later, as more people die, most of them change their mind and want to go back. The deadly ambitious scientist, however, forces them to continue the search. He suddenly appears to be horribly cruel. I especially hated the scene when he forces those who survived to gather the plant and holds the gun in his hand. Perhaps, it would be better when they made him a terrorist. It would have been more logical. But a scientist who kills people from his expedition? What a silly thing!
And the black guy who all the time screams of panic and fear. Sometimes his behavior was so silly that I thought I would leave the cinema.
The utmost nonsense, however, was the end. "All is well that ends well" Less than half a group comes back from the expedition (the rest is eaten by anacondas) and keep smiling as if they have had a nice trip through a jungle. But the movie ends well. It leaves no sorrow in the viewers... What a kitsch!
The only reason why I rate this movie 2 out of 10, not 1, is the location it was shot in. The beauties of Fiji Island kept me in the cinema till the end. If it hadn't been for this aspect, I would have left the cinema before the end. But the location is, perhaps, the most peripheral aspect in the whole movie...
Not a masterpiece, but Good Enjoyable Fun.
ashelin2 January 2005
A scientific expedition sets out for the island of Borneo. They are in search of a flower named the Blood Orchid. Reports say that this flower can lead to a longer life. But what they find inhabiting the rain forest of Borneo are a group of anacondas. But they aren't ordinary... the Blood Orchid made the anacondas longer, faster, and smarter. Now the scientists must find a way out of the rain forest by outsmarting, outrunning and outliving the anacondas.
This movie got slammed by pretentious movie-critic-wannabes who don't understand the concept of a popcorn flick. This is a popcorn flick, a movie that you watch and eat lots of popcorn and enjoy yourself, cause Shakespeare it is not.
I enjoyed the movie, and I'm planning on buying the DVD.
This movie got slammed by pretentious movie-critic-wannabes who don't understand the concept of a popcorn flick. This is a popcorn flick, a movie that you watch and eat lots of popcorn and enjoy yourself, cause Shakespeare it is not.
I enjoyed the movie, and I'm planning on buying the DVD.
Good Grief!
ajhines30 August 2004
OK, this was HORRIBLE. I was cringing for the actors and the inane lines they had to utter- "If there's a way in, there's a way out." What a gem. We should have been writing all these zingers down!! The only upside to this movie was it was supposed to be scary, but we (and this includes everyone that was in the theatre) LAUGHED through it all! Even had tears at some points. It is only worth seeing on video, at home, perhaps while drinking, and to get a good laugh. Geesh!!!! However, the actors sure were great looking and stayed amazingly clean throughout their jungle trek, and the CG animation was very good. There, I found something good to say. :) It wasn't easy, but there it is. Anyway, my daughter thinks I should no longer get to pick the movie we go to see.:)
Entertaining Adventure
claudio_carvalho10 September 2007
In New York, the ambitious Dr. Jack Byron (Matthew Marsden) and his associate Gordon Mitchell (Morris Chestnut) present the research of his assistant Sam Rogers (KaDee Strickland) to the CEO and board of directors of a corporation to sponsor a scientific expedition to Borneo. The objective is to find a flower, Blood Orchid, that flourishes for a couple of weeks every seven years and could be a fountain of youth, prolonging the expectation of life of human beings. They are succeeded and once in Borneo, they realize that it is the raining season and there is no boat available to navigate on the river. They pay US$ 50,000.00 to convince Captain Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) and his partner Tran (Karl Yune) to sail to the location. After an accident in a waterfall, the survivors realize that a pack of anacondas have gathered for mating and their nest is nearby the plantation of Blood Orchid, which made them bigger and bigger.
I saw "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid" with a very low expectation based on the IMDb User Rating, but I liked this entertaining adventure a lot. The story is full of action and humor, and I laughed a lot when Cole calls Sam of "Lorena Babbitt" when she cuts the head of one anaconda. There are the usual clichés of this type of predictable B-movie, but I had a good surprise in the end. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Anaconda 2: A Caçada Pela Orquídea Sangrenta" ("Anaconda 2: The Hunt for the Bloody Orchid")
I saw "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid" with a very low expectation based on the IMDb User Rating, but I liked this entertaining adventure a lot. The story is full of action and humor, and I laughed a lot when Cole calls Sam of "Lorena Babbitt" when she cuts the head of one anaconda. There are the usual clichés of this type of predictable B-movie, but I had a good surprise in the end. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Anaconda 2: A Caçada Pela Orquídea Sangrenta" ("Anaconda 2: The Hunt for the Bloody Orchid")
Cheesy Monster Movie
christian12321 January 2005
A group of scientists travel down a river in the Borneo jungle looking for a rare orchid that can help create a youth-preserving formula. Instead, they end up encountering a bunch of deadly giant snakes protecting their prize.
Anacondas is a fun movie to watch as long as you have your brain turned off. The original was a pretty corny horror film with a few entertaining moments. The sequel is more or less the same except no one from the first movie is back. I was actually a little disappointed with Anacondas. It wasn't as scary or funny as I thought it was going to be. The movie carried the same serious tone throughout the entire film and this got a little annoying. It could have had more fun with its premise but it followed the original. The story is very weak which is kind of weird since there were a bunch of writers working on it. Apparently they were all lazy since none of them bothered to look up where anacondas really live. This huge and noticeable geographical error was the most entertainment I got from the movie.
The acting is a non-issue but lets just say no one is going to be winning an Oscar anytime soon. The only person to give an okay performance was KaDee Strickland though that's not really saying much. All the characters are really bad stereotypes and not a lot of thought went into them. Actually, not a lot of thought went into anything. Nothing in this film really stands out. The death scenes are pretty lame and the special effects are really weak. The scenery is nice to look at though and the monkey is pretty funny. The movie is pretty short so it wasn't too much of a pain to sit through.
The best way to approach Anacondas is to regard it as a cheesy monster movie. It may not be very entertaining but there were a few fun scenes. In the end, Anacondas isn't really worth watching unless you are in the mood for a really cheesy and bad movie. Otherwise, approach with caution. Rating 5/10
Anacondas is a fun movie to watch as long as you have your brain turned off. The original was a pretty corny horror film with a few entertaining moments. The sequel is more or less the same except no one from the first movie is back. I was actually a little disappointed with Anacondas. It wasn't as scary or funny as I thought it was going to be. The movie carried the same serious tone throughout the entire film and this got a little annoying. It could have had more fun with its premise but it followed the original. The story is very weak which is kind of weird since there were a bunch of writers working on it. Apparently they were all lazy since none of them bothered to look up where anacondas really live. This huge and noticeable geographical error was the most entertainment I got from the movie.
The acting is a non-issue but lets just say no one is going to be winning an Oscar anytime soon. The only person to give an okay performance was KaDee Strickland though that's not really saying much. All the characters are really bad stereotypes and not a lot of thought went into them. Actually, not a lot of thought went into anything. Nothing in this film really stands out. The death scenes are pretty lame and the special effects are really weak. The scenery is nice to look at though and the monkey is pretty funny. The movie is pretty short so it wasn't too much of a pain to sit through.
The best way to approach Anacondas is to regard it as a cheesy monster movie. It may not be very entertaining but there were a few fun scenes. In the end, Anacondas isn't really worth watching unless you are in the mood for a really cheesy and bad movie. Otherwise, approach with caution. Rating 5/10
Critically underrated
animalz6198 October 2008
This movie in my opinion is critically underrated and for that matter it is a superb movie.The first movie in the anacondas series was so pathetic that I hoped the second would be much better,and I was right.An orchid with a unique chemical that can transcend ones life is being protected by bloodthirsty anacondas and those that are looking for it are thrust into a battle for survival. The acting is great and the setting is even better.The reason this movie is so underrated is because it may be inaccurate but movies are made to entertain and are in a world of their own and unless they are based on true facts,they shouldn't be compared to real life situations and for that reason,I rank this movie as a superb adventure/thriller that will be enjoyed by many.
Best movie in ANACONDA Franchise!
MuviFan7322 June 2019
There were movies released before and after this installment but this one stood the best.
The story, associated facts with drugs and the mammoth reptile were all executed nicely. Direction withstood quality.
Final Verdict: The movie is underrated in its segment and is worth watching.
The story, associated facts with drugs and the mammoth reptile were all executed nicely. Direction withstood quality.
Final Verdict: The movie is underrated in its segment and is worth watching.
Truly, truly awful
Rourke11 October 2004
This film must get nominations for Worst Editing and Worst Screenplay at the Razzies. Atrocious dialogue, segments of the movie that have obviously been moved around (e.g., "We have to get back to the boat!" after the boat has been destroyed), and laughably ridiculous errors of geography (rivers which manage to run in loops?! Escher would be proud)
I've heard that the budget was $25m+, but they obviously couldn't afford enough rain for a proper rainy season - there are even hacked-in scenes where daylight can be seen although the action should be happening in darkness.
Not to mention CGI snakes less convincing than the one which took out Sunnydale High in Buffy Season Four.
There is nothing redeeming about this film whatsoever. Not even the monkey, who does not interact with the human characters for the entire second half of the film yet is still shown screaming whenever anything scary happens.
Oh, and anacondas are native to SOUTH America. So are the natives who appear in the completely irrelevant sequence to start the movie. Take a look at your globe to see just how far that is from Borneo, Indonesia.
I've heard that the budget was $25m+, but they obviously couldn't afford enough rain for a proper rainy season - there are even hacked-in scenes where daylight can be seen although the action should be happening in darkness.
Not to mention CGI snakes less convincing than the one which took out Sunnydale High in Buffy Season Four.
There is nothing redeeming about this film whatsoever. Not even the monkey, who does not interact with the human characters for the entire second half of the film yet is still shown screaming whenever anything scary happens.
Oh, and anacondas are native to SOUTH America. So are the natives who appear in the completely irrelevant sequence to start the movie. Take a look at your globe to see just how far that is from Borneo, Indonesia.
A movie that exists for no other reason than to be the butt of our mockery.
TheMovieMark30 August 2004
Bring the crackers because mama, this movie is bringin' the cheese! If there has ever been a more culturally diverse group of no-name actors to brave the jungles of Borneo then I'll end my movie reviewing career right now (future users of the Alan Smithee pseudonym applaud). All right, I've kept this secret, but I actually sat in on a production meeting for Anacondas and here's how it went down:
"Annoying black dude who just screams the whole time?"
"Check. But let's put a tough black dude in there as well. Don't wanna be accused of stereotyping."
"Good idea. Who is Morris Chestnut?"
"Well, we thought it was a brand of chewing tobacco, but he's actually who we're gonna use as our tough black guy."
"Oh, OK. How about a Latino woman with an unnecessarily bad attitude?"
"You mean the J-Lo wannabe? Check."
"Good. Did y'all find that tough-looking Asian guy?"
"Check. It wasn't easy, but we found one with a mullet."
"Perfect. That'll alert everybody that he's not one of those brainy Asians. How about a blonde babe with a thick, fake Southern accent?"
"Check. She's from Georgia, but her accent sounded too realistic. We told her to fake it up."
"Good job. And I saw that you found a white European male, but how about the protagonist?"
"Oh, you mean the muscular white guy with a 2-day beard growth and husky voice? Check. He's in wardrobe right now having the sleeves on his tight shirt rolled up."
"Perfect. Just don't forget the tattoos. Now how about somebody who's actually famous?"
"Um, well, we don't exactly have that. But hey, we've got everything else!" And that, my friends, is your cast. Some other guy of some sort of foreign descent was thrown in there as well. He looked like Gregg Rainwater from The Young Riders. He died soon enough, so it doesn't really matter.
My money says you really won't care about anybody involved in this production. Well, I did like the southern girl. She was pretty hot. But why do producers insist on accents being so fake? Her accent dwindled as the movie went along. She eventually was only accenting about one word per sentence, but by the climax she started fakin' it up with reckless abandon!
And I'm sure plenty of girls will think Johnny "Five O'Clock Shadow" Messner is pretty hot, but for the most part you'll spend the first 10 minutes of the movie picking which characters you want to see swallowed whole by a giant anaconda. My first choice was the Jennifer Lopez wannabe. When B-movie characters like her prance around with a huge chip on their shoulder, I usually pray for some sort of creature to sneak up and bite that chip right off. Along with the entire shoulder.
This is one of those movies that relies on every cliché in the B-movie book. In other words, you can expect a whole lot of stuff like a door opening slowly and then something jumping out while a loud noise is made. And since this is a "creature feature," by definition a lot of the action takes place at night, in dark caves and in water, with only flashlights to light the way.
Dialogue is expectedly bad. We're treated to such intellectually-challenged exchanges as: "What's wrong with this picture?" "You're in it." And it's mostly dominated by Messner's Michael Paré-esque line delivery and Eugene Byrd's banshee-like screeching. It's funny up to a point, but eventually you start looking at your watch and thinking, "OK snake, it's time to eat this kid."
The CGI looks a little goofy at times, but most of it is well done thanks to the wise decision to hide the flaws with darkness and water. If you're wondering how this compares to the original Anaconda, well, the two really have nothing to do with each other except for presence of an anaconda. The first movie had famous people in it, this one doesn't. However, this one does have more anacondas! It's been 7 years since I saw the original, but I'm pretty sure it's the better of the two.
My biggest complaint is that Anacondas wasn't cheesy ENOUGH! If you're gonna be bad, then go as far out on the cheesy limb as you can go! Instead of a blood orchid, their research should've discovered a rare, Indonesian banana that held the secret to long life. Then once it was discovered the anacondas were eating these things and living forever, one of the bad actors could've deadpanned, "What are these things? Bananacondas?" BWAHAHAHAHA! Man, I really need to start writing screenplays for intentionally bad movies.
And I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Since "versus" movies are the current sequel trend, they should've dug up Harrison Ford (it's been four years since the guy had a hit), given him the Jack Ryan moniker again, and given *us* Jack Ryan Vs. Anaconda: The Hunt for the Blood Red Orchid in October. He could've been the guide for the scientists, and when one of them started whining he could've cracked, "Traveling through Borneo ain't like dusting crops, boy." Then he would've looked into the camera and winked. It'd have been awesome and you know it.
Oh, and let me leave with a word of advice. If a bad guy is standing near the edge of an anaconda pit, and he's holding a gun on one of your colleagues, but his back is to you, then please, for the love of all that is holy, instead of whimpering like someone forced to sit through a post-1987 Corey Feldman movie, stand up and kick the guy in the pit.
"Annoying black dude who just screams the whole time?"
"Check. But let's put a tough black dude in there as well. Don't wanna be accused of stereotyping."
"Good idea. Who is Morris Chestnut?"
"Well, we thought it was a brand of chewing tobacco, but he's actually who we're gonna use as our tough black guy."
"Oh, OK. How about a Latino woman with an unnecessarily bad attitude?"
"You mean the J-Lo wannabe? Check."
"Good. Did y'all find that tough-looking Asian guy?"
"Check. It wasn't easy, but we found one with a mullet."
"Perfect. That'll alert everybody that he's not one of those brainy Asians. How about a blonde babe with a thick, fake Southern accent?"
"Check. She's from Georgia, but her accent sounded too realistic. We told her to fake it up."
"Good job. And I saw that you found a white European male, but how about the protagonist?"
"Oh, you mean the muscular white guy with a 2-day beard growth and husky voice? Check. He's in wardrobe right now having the sleeves on his tight shirt rolled up."
"Perfect. Just don't forget the tattoos. Now how about somebody who's actually famous?"
"Um, well, we don't exactly have that. But hey, we've got everything else!" And that, my friends, is your cast. Some other guy of some sort of foreign descent was thrown in there as well. He looked like Gregg Rainwater from The Young Riders. He died soon enough, so it doesn't really matter.
My money says you really won't care about anybody involved in this production. Well, I did like the southern girl. She was pretty hot. But why do producers insist on accents being so fake? Her accent dwindled as the movie went along. She eventually was only accenting about one word per sentence, but by the climax she started fakin' it up with reckless abandon!
And I'm sure plenty of girls will think Johnny "Five O'Clock Shadow" Messner is pretty hot, but for the most part you'll spend the first 10 minutes of the movie picking which characters you want to see swallowed whole by a giant anaconda. My first choice was the Jennifer Lopez wannabe. When B-movie characters like her prance around with a huge chip on their shoulder, I usually pray for some sort of creature to sneak up and bite that chip right off. Along with the entire shoulder.
This is one of those movies that relies on every cliché in the B-movie book. In other words, you can expect a whole lot of stuff like a door opening slowly and then something jumping out while a loud noise is made. And since this is a "creature feature," by definition a lot of the action takes place at night, in dark caves and in water, with only flashlights to light the way.
Dialogue is expectedly bad. We're treated to such intellectually-challenged exchanges as: "What's wrong with this picture?" "You're in it." And it's mostly dominated by Messner's Michael Paré-esque line delivery and Eugene Byrd's banshee-like screeching. It's funny up to a point, but eventually you start looking at your watch and thinking, "OK snake, it's time to eat this kid."
The CGI looks a little goofy at times, but most of it is well done thanks to the wise decision to hide the flaws with darkness and water. If you're wondering how this compares to the original Anaconda, well, the two really have nothing to do with each other except for presence of an anaconda. The first movie had famous people in it, this one doesn't. However, this one does have more anacondas! It's been 7 years since I saw the original, but I'm pretty sure it's the better of the two.
My biggest complaint is that Anacondas wasn't cheesy ENOUGH! If you're gonna be bad, then go as far out on the cheesy limb as you can go! Instead of a blood orchid, their research should've discovered a rare, Indonesian banana that held the secret to long life. Then once it was discovered the anacondas were eating these things and living forever, one of the bad actors could've deadpanned, "What are these things? Bananacondas?" BWAHAHAHAHA! Man, I really need to start writing screenplays for intentionally bad movies.
And I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Since "versus" movies are the current sequel trend, they should've dug up Harrison Ford (it's been four years since the guy had a hit), given him the Jack Ryan moniker again, and given *us* Jack Ryan Vs. Anaconda: The Hunt for the Blood Red Orchid in October. He could've been the guide for the scientists, and when one of them started whining he could've cracked, "Traveling through Borneo ain't like dusting crops, boy." Then he would've looked into the camera and winked. It'd have been awesome and you know it.
Oh, and let me leave with a word of advice. If a bad guy is standing near the edge of an anaconda pit, and he's holding a gun on one of your colleagues, but his back is to you, then please, for the love of all that is holy, instead of whimpering like someone forced to sit through a post-1987 Corey Feldman movie, stand up and kick the guy in the pit.
Slithers with cliché
BroadswordCallinDannyBoy25 March 2005
There is a rare flower that grows only in a remote part of the Indonesian jungle. It has the ability to help cells multiply with lessened risk of infection and thus, prolongs life. If obtained, it could be turned into a medicinal product that could save millions and prolong the life of others. The catch: a pack of psycho snakes lives where the flower grows.
The result here is a laughably predictable and routine creature feature. They say too many cooks spoil the stew... the fact that there are four screenwriters is probably why there is not a hint of originality slithering about. The director was just fed up with the different ideas and resorted to a generic story so there at least will be some coherence. The snakes are cool, but have too little screen time to be considered scary, though their appearances are often startling. But in the end, if have you seen one movie like this, you've seen them all. Only fans of creature flicks should watch this. 4/10
Rated PG-13: violence, terror, and some profanity
The result here is a laughably predictable and routine creature feature. They say too many cooks spoil the stew... the fact that there are four screenwriters is probably why there is not a hint of originality slithering about. The director was just fed up with the different ideas and resorted to a generic story so there at least will be some coherence. The snakes are cool, but have too little screen time to be considered scary, though their appearances are often startling. But in the end, if have you seen one movie like this, you've seen them all. Only fans of creature flicks should watch this. 4/10
Rated PG-13: violence, terror, and some profanity
Mediocre but somewhat entertaining.
Spanner-231 August 2004
Ok, well when you go to a movie with a title like this one I suppose you should know what to expect. This film has very little to do with the original "Anaconda", no Jon Voight, no J-Lo, not even Eric Stoltz... its just another hapless group of dumb Americans traveling down a river (in this case, to find a mysterious orchid that might yield the fountain of youth!!!) and getting picked off by giant snakes. This time we have a whole slew of Anacondas (in heat no less) attacking our little group. Yea, none of this makes the slightest bit of sense.. but hey.. its kinda fun anyways in a trasy low grade B movie kinda way.. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the CGI lizard picking off mediocre thespians. GRADE: D+
Had Potential (@sincerelymajestik)
myreviewss2 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
OK so I've watched so many movies that writing a full review gets to be too much. So I'll keep it short. I liked the graffics, storyline, and certain scenes.
I disliked how they had to talk about girls sexually working they're way up the success ladder (because that usually doesn't really happen, and its morally wrong), I disliked that the black guy was a complete wimp (he doesn't have to be a hunter, but a least somewhat of a man), I disliked that they had to add the scientist and black man having sleeping together. Completely unnecessary and didn't add to the story.
This movie had some good scenes, good acting, and could have been an all-time favorite for me (and endorsed by me), unfortunately it killed itself. #4Stars
I disliked how they had to talk about girls sexually working they're way up the success ladder (because that usually doesn't really happen, and its morally wrong), I disliked that the black guy was a complete wimp (he doesn't have to be a hunter, but a least somewhat of a man), I disliked that they had to add the scientist and black man having sleeping together. Completely unnecessary and didn't add to the story.
This movie had some good scenes, good acting, and could have been an all-time favorite for me (and endorsed by me), unfortunately it killed itself. #4Stars
Pleasant Surprise!
crispin_137 March 2010
My own personal favourite sub-genre of film is "Animals Eating People". I don't know if that is an actual sub-genre but that is what I call it. The best of it's kind being JAWS (of course) and others if it's ilk being Piranha, Alligator, Lake Placid, The Edge, and Anaconda.
I enjoyed Anaconda but surprisingly, this film, which is a sequel in title only really, is a much better film. There are tighter suspense sequences, reasonable acting, and good visual effects. I tend to be fonder of anamatronic effects over CGI but these are pretty good. The original Anaconda had pretty good anamatronic snakes but just because of the nature of the animal, they looked a bit hokey. They might have been scary if you were scared of snakes but otherwise they looked like big Muppet snakes who cracked up into big smiles every time they attacked.
The CGI here lends itself to visually ridiculous touches like big fangs on snakes that don't naturally have big teeth but if you can watch this movie at all, you will suspend your disbelief. Good fun, good thrills, no Oscars. Enjoy.
I enjoyed Anaconda but surprisingly, this film, which is a sequel in title only really, is a much better film. There are tighter suspense sequences, reasonable acting, and good visual effects. I tend to be fonder of anamatronic effects over CGI but these are pretty good. The original Anaconda had pretty good anamatronic snakes but just because of the nature of the animal, they looked a bit hokey. They might have been scary if you were scared of snakes but otherwise they looked like big Muppet snakes who cracked up into big smiles every time they attacked.
The CGI here lends itself to visually ridiculous touches like big fangs on snakes that don't naturally have big teeth but if you can watch this movie at all, you will suspend your disbelief. Good fun, good thrills, no Oscars. Enjoy.
Not as good as the first
aeo4 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I remember renting the first Anaconda movie and being thoroughly enjoyed by it. Unfortunately, this movie is not as good as the first because of bad script and poor character development. In the first movie, it had strong actors like Jon Voigt, who always display Oscar-winning performances and surprisingly, Ice Cube. Jennifer Lopez though, cannot act, no matter what movie you put her in.
Using the same formula as in the first movie, you have a group of people, going into a dense jungle with some greedy or crazy individual who will do anything to get what they want. The problem began with the passengers of this group.
*****possible spoilers*********** Story is about a group of pharmaceutical company representatives out to search for a rare blue orchid with promises of being a fountain of youth, but it only blooms every 7 years. They arrive in Borneo but it is the monsoon season and only one boat will take them to their destination but for a price. This captain of this boat is not your typical captain nor his first mate. Both look like they spent more time in the gym than in a seedy bar. He is a former US special forces who came to Borneo get it away from the killing. What cliché! They all meet in a bar where the captain is drinking alcohol but it surely does not show any effect on his body. They go on the river and you have the usual dumb banter between the passengers and the captain. The next thing you know, one of the passengers fall off the rickety boat and the captain goes after her but a huge crocodile tries to eat the girl. Captain America takes out his knife and kills the giant crocodile.
************end spoiler***************8
That folks, did it for me. I was losing interest in this movie by this time but that scene was it. I could go on but you get the picture.
Wait for it to appear in your video store.
Using the same formula as in the first movie, you have a group of people, going into a dense jungle with some greedy or crazy individual who will do anything to get what they want. The problem began with the passengers of this group.
*****possible spoilers*********** Story is about a group of pharmaceutical company representatives out to search for a rare blue orchid with promises of being a fountain of youth, but it only blooms every 7 years. They arrive in Borneo but it is the monsoon season and only one boat will take them to their destination but for a price. This captain of this boat is not your typical captain nor his first mate. Both look like they spent more time in the gym than in a seedy bar. He is a former US special forces who came to Borneo get it away from the killing. What cliché! They all meet in a bar where the captain is drinking alcohol but it surely does not show any effect on his body. They go on the river and you have the usual dumb banter between the passengers and the captain. The next thing you know, one of the passengers fall off the rickety boat and the captain goes after her but a huge crocodile tries to eat the girl. Captain America takes out his knife and kills the giant crocodile.
************end spoiler***************8
That folks, did it for me. I was losing interest in this movie by this time but that scene was it. I could go on but you get the picture.
Wait for it to appear in your video store.
One of those movies that you watch just for fun and chill.
undeaddt14 August 2019
It is a nice "cozy sofa at home, tasty dinner, legs on the table" type of movie that you just can't resist to enjoy. The actors are fine to be real, the visuals are not so bad, especially the anacondas, the effects are pretty okay, so there is nothing to moan about, apart from the slightly shallow story. Nice movie to watch when tired and you need something to relax with.
If you thought the first anaconda movie was bad, this is worse
kevin_robbins7 September 2021
Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) is a movie I recently rewatched and is available on Prime. The storyline follows a group of scientists sent into the jungle to recover an orchid that blooms rarely that they believe can be a cure for many things including extending life. They find their expedition will be filled with arguments and man eating snakes. This movie is directed by Dwight H. Little (Murder at 1600) and stars Morris Chestnut (Under Siege 2), KaDee Strickland (The Grudge), Eugene Byrd (Dead Man), Johnny Messner (Tears of the Sun) and Andy Anderson (House of Wax). There's no redeeming qualities to this film. The casting seems out of place and doesn't seem to match the characters and the storyline. The writing is bad and the dialgue is often awkward and uneven. The special effects and CGI is too much and painful to watch at times, like a video game cutaway scene in the middle of the movie. If you thought the first anaconda movie was bad, this is worse. I'd recommend skipping this and would score it a 2/10.
Excellent successor to Anaconda
BrandtSponseller28 February 2005
Series note: Although this is the second film in the Anaconda series, there is no need to watch the films in order. They are merely thematic companions, sharing some similarities of plot and structure. They are not constructed as chapters in a novel.
When it is discovered that an exotic flower found only in Borneo and blooming only every seven years may hold the key to life extension, a large pharmaceutical company sends a team of researchers to acquire samples for study. Making the task thornier, the samples must be obtained while the plant is in bloom, and as the film begins, it will only be in bloom a few more weeks. In increasing layers of difficulty, it's rainy season in Borneo and only Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) is crazy enough to take the team upriver in his ramshackle boat before the season ends, despite the fact that they're offering $50,000, and as they make their way upstream, of course the team runs into giant anacondas of the type found in the first film.
Like Anaconda, Anacondas has been getting a fairly bad rap and I can't quite figure out why. Sure, some people have complained about inaccuracies in the films when compared to facts in the actual world, but seriously, what's wrong with anyone who'd expect fictional films like Anacondas to be educational or largely a documentary? The films are basically monster flicks, with the degree of predictability that usually entails, but what would one be expecting otherwise? Both films are certainly internally consistent, with captivating stories, fine performances and well executed technical aspects--directing, editing, production design, cinematography (particularly beautiful in this entry, and the Fijian landscapes are often breathtaking), and so on.
And in fact, Anacondas has much more than just competent artistry. From the first frames to the last, this is one heck of a thrill ride, with plot twists and turns around every corner mimicking the river and the coils of the titular beast. It has basically nonstop suspense, it cleverly incorporates horror elements from psycho humans to haunted houses (the caves and the village they come across near the climax are basically haunted houses in structure and tone). A number of sequences will stick in your mind for a long time, such as the intense waterfall scene and the great "wading" scene. There are also poignant subtexts about materialism and the desire to be immortal versus emotional and pragmatic concern for fellow humans. The new writing team even manages to insert thought-provoking dilemmas related to utilitarianism.
There are a number of interesting parallels to Anaconda (1997), with an equally interesting and capable motley crew of characters played by a skilled cast. It may be a different locale, but the gist is still an Apocalypse Now (1979)-styled trip up a river where the complexly interacting crew must encounter and overcome various obstacles, not the least of which are members of their own group, including initially veiled villains who are as much of a snake as the more literal, reptilian villains.
Director Dwight H. Little also gives us an amusing alternate world take on Anaconda's Paul Sarone (inimitably performed in that film by Jon Voight) in Anacondas' short lived John Livingston (Andy Anderson), whose name ties us in to famed 19th Century African explorer David Livingstone, and the many filmic depictions of the same, including The Lost Jungle (1934) and Stanley and Livingstone (1939). That's not the only references to classics, as Bill Johnson's boat, "The Bloody Mary", a character in its own right, has stylistic similarities to Charlie Allnut's African Queen (from the 1951 film of the same name) and the overall journey has resemblances to Disney's Jungle Cruise.
While the attack scenes may not be quite as clearly filmed and smoothly cut as the first film, Little and his editors make up for it by increasing the number and quality of gradually building suspense sequences where we see a snake through water or in other environments while our protagonists initially overlook them. The digital effects are probably better than the first film and the mechanical/animatronics effects are close in quality. In addition, Little incorporated many shots of real anacondas.
If you at all enjoyed the first film, you should enjoy this one, as well. It's important to watch films like Anacondas without inappropriate expectations. In my view, Little and crew have accomplished exactly what they set out to do--create an intense thrill-ride of a monster flick with touches of humor and deeper subtexts that's a worthy stylistic and thematic successor to the first film.
When it is discovered that an exotic flower found only in Borneo and blooming only every seven years may hold the key to life extension, a large pharmaceutical company sends a team of researchers to acquire samples for study. Making the task thornier, the samples must be obtained while the plant is in bloom, and as the film begins, it will only be in bloom a few more weeks. In increasing layers of difficulty, it's rainy season in Borneo and only Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) is crazy enough to take the team upriver in his ramshackle boat before the season ends, despite the fact that they're offering $50,000, and as they make their way upstream, of course the team runs into giant anacondas of the type found in the first film.
Like Anaconda, Anacondas has been getting a fairly bad rap and I can't quite figure out why. Sure, some people have complained about inaccuracies in the films when compared to facts in the actual world, but seriously, what's wrong with anyone who'd expect fictional films like Anacondas to be educational or largely a documentary? The films are basically monster flicks, with the degree of predictability that usually entails, but what would one be expecting otherwise? Both films are certainly internally consistent, with captivating stories, fine performances and well executed technical aspects--directing, editing, production design, cinematography (particularly beautiful in this entry, and the Fijian landscapes are often breathtaking), and so on.
And in fact, Anacondas has much more than just competent artistry. From the first frames to the last, this is one heck of a thrill ride, with plot twists and turns around every corner mimicking the river and the coils of the titular beast. It has basically nonstop suspense, it cleverly incorporates horror elements from psycho humans to haunted houses (the caves and the village they come across near the climax are basically haunted houses in structure and tone). A number of sequences will stick in your mind for a long time, such as the intense waterfall scene and the great "wading" scene. There are also poignant subtexts about materialism and the desire to be immortal versus emotional and pragmatic concern for fellow humans. The new writing team even manages to insert thought-provoking dilemmas related to utilitarianism.
There are a number of interesting parallels to Anaconda (1997), with an equally interesting and capable motley crew of characters played by a skilled cast. It may be a different locale, but the gist is still an Apocalypse Now (1979)-styled trip up a river where the complexly interacting crew must encounter and overcome various obstacles, not the least of which are members of their own group, including initially veiled villains who are as much of a snake as the more literal, reptilian villains.
Director Dwight H. Little also gives us an amusing alternate world take on Anaconda's Paul Sarone (inimitably performed in that film by Jon Voight) in Anacondas' short lived John Livingston (Andy Anderson), whose name ties us in to famed 19th Century African explorer David Livingstone, and the many filmic depictions of the same, including The Lost Jungle (1934) and Stanley and Livingstone (1939). That's not the only references to classics, as Bill Johnson's boat, "The Bloody Mary", a character in its own right, has stylistic similarities to Charlie Allnut's African Queen (from the 1951 film of the same name) and the overall journey has resemblances to Disney's Jungle Cruise.
While the attack scenes may not be quite as clearly filmed and smoothly cut as the first film, Little and his editors make up for it by increasing the number and quality of gradually building suspense sequences where we see a snake through water or in other environments while our protagonists initially overlook them. The digital effects are probably better than the first film and the mechanical/animatronics effects are close in quality. In addition, Little incorporated many shots of real anacondas.
If you at all enjoyed the first film, you should enjoy this one, as well. It's important to watch films like Anacondas without inappropriate expectations. In my view, Little and crew have accomplished exactly what they set out to do--create an intense thrill-ride of a monster flick with touches of humor and deeper subtexts that's a worthy stylistic and thematic successor to the first film.
I like this one more than the first.
BA_Harrison17 June 2020
Scientists working for a pharmaceutical company travel to Borneo in search of 'the blood orchid', a rare flower that they believe can be used to prolong a person's life. Chartering a boat, they travel down river, but after an unexpected encounter with a raging waterfall, they find themselves stranded in the jungle, where they are hunted by giant anacondas.
Big creature sequel Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid lacks the star power of the first film - it's biggest name is Morris Chestnut, 'star' of Boyz n the Hood and Under Siege 2: Dark Territory - but despite the dearth of familiar faces, the film still manages to be a lot of fun, director Dwight H. Little (Marked for Death, Halloween 4) recognising the dumb popcorn nature of the script and conducting matters accordingly. His film is full of over-the-top action and horror, with every character a cliché, from the gruff hero with tattoos and stubble, to his brave Asian sidekick, to the sexy blonde female scientist, to the token latino woman with sass, and the loathsome British villain, right down to the cowardly comic relief who screams at every opportunity. There's even a cute capuchin monkey called Kong! It's 'switch off your brain and enjoy' entertainment -- nothing more, nothing less -- and Little pulls it off superbly and not without a sense of style, the director making great use of his lush, tropical setting.
The anacondas themselves, are, of course, cost-effective CGI and aren't wholly convincing (although they're nowhere near as bad as SyFy channel standards), but thankfully the snakes are largely kept in the dark, or under water, and don't dominate the film, much of the action being relatively reptile free. There are plenty of other dangers to be faced by the plucky adventurers, including a hungry crocodile, a wild river, bloodsucking leeches, poisonous spiders, and an unscrupulous leader who will do absolutely ANYTHING to achieve his goal.
When all is said and done, Anacondas is the kind of film that demands the viewer to forget all about such trifling details as the fact that anacondas aren't indigenous to Borneo; if you can do that, you're bound to have fun.
Big creature sequel Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid lacks the star power of the first film - it's biggest name is Morris Chestnut, 'star' of Boyz n the Hood and Under Siege 2: Dark Territory - but despite the dearth of familiar faces, the film still manages to be a lot of fun, director Dwight H. Little (Marked for Death, Halloween 4) recognising the dumb popcorn nature of the script and conducting matters accordingly. His film is full of over-the-top action and horror, with every character a cliché, from the gruff hero with tattoos and stubble, to his brave Asian sidekick, to the sexy blonde female scientist, to the token latino woman with sass, and the loathsome British villain, right down to the cowardly comic relief who screams at every opportunity. There's even a cute capuchin monkey called Kong! It's 'switch off your brain and enjoy' entertainment -- nothing more, nothing less -- and Little pulls it off superbly and not without a sense of style, the director making great use of his lush, tropical setting.
The anacondas themselves, are, of course, cost-effective CGI and aren't wholly convincing (although they're nowhere near as bad as SyFy channel standards), but thankfully the snakes are largely kept in the dark, or under water, and don't dominate the film, much of the action being relatively reptile free. There are plenty of other dangers to be faced by the plucky adventurers, including a hungry crocodile, a wild river, bloodsucking leeches, poisonous spiders, and an unscrupulous leader who will do absolutely ANYTHING to achieve his goal.
When all is said and done, Anacondas is the kind of film that demands the viewer to forget all about such trifling details as the fact that anacondas aren't indigenous to Borneo; if you can do that, you're bound to have fun.
Silly Slithering Sequel
ghoulieguru31 December 2004
I didn't know that the original Anaconda did so well in the theaters that it deserved a second outing. However, warranted or not, Screen Gems has given us this glorious sequel to an utterly unforgettable giant snake movie.
It is what it is, guys. A giant snake movie. There's some sort of plot line about a pharmaceutical company wanting a super rare orchid, but it's still just a giant snake movie. If you liked Boa vs. Python, this one should have you writhing around on the floor in glee.
The CG effects are slightly better in this one than in the original, and the best part of this movie involves an anaconda slithering between the legs of our protagonists, just below the surface of the water. The effects were probably the best part of the movie. In fact, they were good enough in this movie to boost my original rating of 2 to a whopping 4 stars.
It is what it is, guys. A giant snake movie. There's some sort of plot line about a pharmaceutical company wanting a super rare orchid, but it's still just a giant snake movie. If you liked Boa vs. Python, this one should have you writhing around on the floor in glee.
The CG effects are slightly better in this one than in the original, and the best part of this movie involves an anaconda slithering between the legs of our protagonists, just below the surface of the water. The effects were probably the best part of the movie. In fact, they were good enough in this movie to boost my original rating of 2 to a whopping 4 stars.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
