Anaconda - Sentiero di sangue
Titolo originale: Anacondas 4: Trail of Blood
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
2,9/10
6108
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Amanda è di nuovo alle prese con dei giganteschi serpenti geneticamente modificati.Amanda è di nuovo alle prese con dei giganteschi serpenti geneticamente modificati.Amanda è di nuovo alle prese con dei giganteschi serpenti geneticamente modificati.
Alexandru Potocean
- Roland
- (as Alexandru Potoceanu)
- …
Marcel Cobzariu
- Mercenary #1
- (as Marcelo Cobzariu)
Vasile Albinet
- Mercenary #4
- (as Vali Albinet)
Riepilogo
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.
Recensioni in evidenza
...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!
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.
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
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
After the baby snake from the killer Anaconda was salvaged from the fiery explosion in Anaconda 3, it grows at a rapid pace due to the blood orchid serum and is ready to attack.
We first see that the baby snake from the end of the third film is no longer a baby. The snake grew 5 times the normal size within days of the new serum being introduced into its system. The only downside is that it makes the creature far more aggressive than usual. The snake can now regenerate itself after a wound when the serum is given to it. It escapes capture and kills the Murdoch's scientist from the end of the 3rd movie. Murdoch hires a hitman to kill Amanda from the previous film because she knows too much. We also learn he has a week to live without the new serum so he wants results ASAP. Can Amanda survive Murdoch and the killer snake?
Anaconda 4 is another failure in the series, like the 3rd one. Both of which are made for television entires put out by SciFi TV. This one feels just as rushed and cheap as the third movie. We get very little character development which made me not feel for any of them when the snake attacks. Crystal Allen does a good job again, and Linden Ashby is a welcomed addition to the cast as well. Everyone else is in this movie just to be snake food.
I liked it slightly more than Anaconda 3, but that's not saying much.
3/10
We first see that the baby snake from the end of the third film is no longer a baby. The snake grew 5 times the normal size within days of the new serum being introduced into its system. The only downside is that it makes the creature far more aggressive than usual. The snake can now regenerate itself after a wound when the serum is given to it. It escapes capture and kills the Murdoch's scientist from the end of the 3rd movie. Murdoch hires a hitman to kill Amanda from the previous film because she knows too much. We also learn he has a week to live without the new serum so he wants results ASAP. Can Amanda survive Murdoch and the killer snake?
Anaconda 4 is another failure in the series, like the 3rd one. Both of which are made for television entires put out by SciFi TV. This one feels just as rushed and cheap as the third movie. We get very little character development which made me not feel for any of them when the snake attacks. Crystal Allen does a good job again, and Linden Ashby is a welcomed addition to the cast as well. Everyone else is in this movie just to be snake food.
I liked it slightly more than Anaconda 3, but that's not saying much.
3/10
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe 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.
- BlooperJust 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.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Phelous & the Movies: Phanacondas 4 (2010)
- Colonne sonoreConcerto 1052 for Harpsichord
Written by Johann Sebastian Bach (as Bach)
Arranged and Performed by Garry Johnston
Courtesy of Noma Music
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Anacondas: Trail of Blood
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 29 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Anaconda - Sentiero di sangue (2009) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi