NOTE IMDb
2,9/10
6,1 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA genetically created Anaconda, cut in half, regenerates itself into two aggressive giant snakes, due to the Blood Orchid.A genetically created Anaconda, cut in half, regenerates itself into two aggressive giant snakes, due to the Blood Orchid.A genetically created Anaconda, cut in half, regenerates itself into two aggressive giant snakes, due to the Blood Orchid.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Alexandru Potocean
- Roland
- (as Alexandru Potoceanu)
- …
Marcel Cobzariu
- Mercenary #1
- (as Marcelo Cobzariu)
Vasile Albinet
- Mercenary #4
- (as Vali Albinet)
Résumé
Reviewers say 'Anacondas: Trail of Blood' delves into the perilous world of genetically enhanced snakes, highlighting themes of greed and the risks of unchecked scientific progress. The film balances action, horror, and scientific intrigue, focusing on the regenerative capabilities of the snakes. It contrasts those exploiting the Blood Orchid with those aiming to prevent disaster. The visual style and tone align with its predecessor, garnering mixed reviews as a typical made-for-TV creature feature.
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Shot back-to-back with Anaconda 3, this carries on the riveting saga of snakes, flowers and secret formulas. It's come a long, ridiculous way since it's humble origins. This continues the cheap, made for television feel. The CGI is just an effortless mess which just can't interact with it's surroundings. This snake must be as light as a feather to not disturb the dirt as it slithers. The original had the charm of campy "throat-o-vision" which was actually practical effects. The fourth installment doesn't even have David Hasselhoff. There were a few genuine laughs, which suggest this should have been a comedy. The grenade scene was just unexpectedly goofy, but pleasant.
Seriously, They must have known that this would suck. Yet they still go ahead and produce it. Why?
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film contains many references to Anaconda 2: the plot is developed around the bloody orchid, one of the main characters is fatally bitten by a spider, the plot indirectly involves the company Wexel hall, the protagonists survive by blowing up the Anaconda and the design of the Anaconda is openly inspired by the green Anaconda.
- GaffesJust before the title sequence, when the camera enters the lab, the cameraman can be seen reflected on the edge of the stainless steel worktable. He's wearing jeans.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Phelous & the Movies: Phanacondas 4 (2010)
- Bandes originalesConcerto 1052 for Harpsichord
Written by Johann Sebastian Bach (as Bach)
Arranged and Performed by Garry Johnston
Courtesy of Noma Music
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Anacondas: Trail of Blood
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 29 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Anaconda 4: sur la piste du sang (2009) officially released in India in English?
Répondre