Anacondas: Trail of Blood

Seriously, They must have known that this would suck. Yet they still go ahead and produce it. Why?

This movie was not as bad as expected. The acting wasn't Oscar worthy but for a Sci-Fi produced film, most of the cast gave it all they had. Speaking of the cast, there were plenty of characters in this film, that's for sure. Maybe a bit too many. So much so that the two other people I saw this with kept asking, "Well, who are these people?" or "Where was this guy in the movie before now? I never seen him before now!" And it's true. There were so many characters and competing story lines that it was hard to keep track of exactly what the heck was going on sometimes.

Another problem with cheesy horror films like this is that the writers have characters do the dumbest things just for the sake of moving the plot along or for an individual character to serve as an easy kill for the monster. There are a lot of instances in the movie where this plot device is used. It shows a serious lack of creativity on the writers' part. It makes the characters seem so cliché. And when they continue to do stupid stuff in situations where they should be more cautious or just use plain ol' commonsense, it's hard for the viewer to care when they end up in the mouth of an 100-foot anaconda.

Other things to note: Gore is not too bad although special effects overall are the worse. The film moves along at a consistent pace from start to finish and the ending hints at a sequel, but I'm not so sure that's a good idea. From the first Anaconda on up to this latest effort, there hasn't been anything new added to the franchise. And unless writers start actually being creative, there probably won't be anything added to the franchise that justifies another movie, which might explain why the major film production companies stopped after the second Anaconda film.

Let's start it of with the acting. When I watch a movie, I expect it to feel real. I expect it to feel natural. When I was watching this movie I felt horrified by how the directors can actually think that people start dialogs like they do in this movie.

The effects does not feel real and the plot has definitely been used before. And the way the movie flow and the way things happen, feel so fake. And not like some kind of Quentin Tarantino movie either.

To top it all of I feel like they made the wrong actors play the wrong characters. None of the voices feel like a fit.

Still, if you are really bored, You could watch it. But you should not watch this film to be amused.

...you really having nothing better to do. For me, even the most outrageous & unbelievable must draw me in at that moment so I'm actually scared and believing this is really happening; but, this movie just had me yelling at impossible & ridiculous situations. I don't know why Anaconda inspired me to finally write my first review other than after rating over 100 movies, realizing ratings alone won't necessarily help me or anyone else next time it comes around again. I've never seen an Anaconda film; and, if this is anything like the rest, I haven't missed a thing. I suppose there's some entertainment value as I didn't turn it off & was curious enough to see what would happen; but, there was really nothing to see but more cliches, a plot that's all over the place & a big snake that can't catch runners but can outslither a Jeep & never gets full. I didn't particularly like much less emotionally connect with any characters either & was constantly annoyed at dumb choices like why waste a man with a stream of bullets in the middle of a jungle where you're being hunted by giant snakes! No thank you, there's too many other choices...whether film or frolic to waste my time on a film like this again. Don't do it!

Well obviously not - with horror there is never the end. Not really ever in any case. Although thankfully some movies have been left alone. But this is the end of the "story" that began with Part 3. And while the other two movies prior had nothing to do with the last two ... there is an obvious connection here. Still you could watch this, without having seen the other. On the other hand, why watch any of the two (part 3 and 4 that is)? Better watch 1 & 2.

Having said, I assume you have seen the third or don't care enough reading this, otherwise jump this paragraph. David Hasselhoff is no more, but we still have the driving force of John Rhys Davies here - or Gimli as some might still call him. Don't think this will bring him down .. bad jokes aside (which you will get a few of in the movie too), the CGI is bad and the acting isn't really helpful either. Considering the time and budget they had (same director as in 3 and was shot back to back with almost no time to prepare), some departments did a lot more than they got paid for ... it is what is, I guess