Anaconda: rastro de sangre

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.

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

This fourth installment in the ANACONDA series is in fact better than the third but miles away from the first two, it features returning actors Crystal Allen who is not a very good actress no offense intended, and John Rhys-Davies who plays his role excellently I might add, the supporting cast which is different than third one is in fact a lot better group of actors then those used in the third one, which is one of the things that made this film better.

Crystal Allen is actually a very attractive woman, but her acting as seen in this one and the previous film is very poor, most of the time she's rubber face and at serious situations she doesn't really play her part very convincingly, she just seems like she doesn't want to put much effort into her acting, like she's just trying to make a quick buck and go home.

Overall, an average snake movie but Ms. Allen would go up for a raspberry award for her acting, the film itself is just a time passer nothing more.

Anaconda went from Hollywood blockbuster to Hollywood B-movie to Scyfy channel garbage and this 4th outing is most definetly the latter.

To its credit it follows on from part 3 pretty well, though considering the two movies were filmed back to back this isn't all too shocking a fact.

Once again our Dr.Amanda Hayes is involved the anaconda/blood orchid lacklustre adventure though now we've lost the "Hoff" and gained the underrated though a tad hammy Linden Ashby.

The sfx are even worse than the previous movie but thankfully everything else is better, marginally better anyway.

The excellent John Rhys Davies also returns but yet again has a tiny role. Why have the best actor in the smallest role? Heartbreaking, truly.

Though the Anaconda franchise seems to have merged with Lake Placid I'm hoping this is the end of the solo movies, they're simply not entertaining at this stage and the franchise has been milked far enough.

One for big fans of the franchise who don't care about just how far the quality has dipped.

The Good:

Carries on from the previous movie well

The Bad:

Really poor cgi

Plot is really generic

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Someone really needs to have a word with the creators about the anacondas teeth

An oddly large number of people seem to want to be eaten by giant snakes, who knew?

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.