brookswieszczek This action adventure horror thriller film was released on August 27, 2004, seven years after its predecessor was released, and earning back more than three times its budget of $20 million. The PG-13-rated film shares the same premise as the previous film: A group of Americans travel into the jungles of Borneo, where they are hunted by snakes, and killed off one by one. The 97-minute long film stars the villainous Matthew Marsden as the leader of a team of researchers, with KaDee Strickland, Eugene Byrd, Salli Richardson, and Nicholas Gonzalez as his colleagues, as well as Morris Chestnut as the CEO of the company he's working for, Johnny Messner as a boat captain, and Karl Yune as a boat skipper. Overall, the acting is better than the film needs to be, especially Marsden as the villain, but the film is just as bad as you'd expect. Although, the various characters getting killed off does make you smile. The film frankly goes by really quickly, as the fast-paced narrative, and director Dwight Little's steadfast direction makes the movie feel an hour shorter than it is. Before I finish the review, I need to point out the decline in quality in the effects used to make the titular snake. The snakes look as bad as Godzilla in Roland Emmerich's 1998 version, although this film's anaconda looks much better than the next two sequels (Offspring, and Trail of Blood). Overall, the film is a good way to kill 90 minutes, or if it's a lazy Sunday afternoon where you want to watch a movie that's so bad it's good. Although, I generally enjoyed the film, and not even ironically. 5/10.

gavin6942 A scientific expedition sets out for Borneo to seek a flower called the Blood Orchid, which could grant longer life. Meanwhile, they run afoul of snakes and each other.Some reviews are saying this film is "criminally underrated". Well, those people have no idea what they are talking about. The movie is apparently part of the "Anaconda" franchise, I think (this is not clear), and they could not even muster up a single B-list or even D-list actor to carry the picture.This was rather boring and did little to hold my attention. Maybe I am getting old and cranky, but I have seen enough bad movies in my life. Even SyFy, which makes the worst, has a way of often making them entertaining. This was bad and boring, the ultimate one-two punch of failure.

jessegehrig Where did the anacondas come from? A native snake species from South America, in the nation of Borneo, how did they get there? Back to the more important question, if ancient tribes people living in the region known as Borneo have passed on traditions and legends concerning anacondas for like generations, how in the f*ck did the snakes get there? The Amazon river basin is like thousands of miles away from Borneo. Do screen writers not understand how distance works? Is science not that important? Geography not important anymore? Do you not care about stuff having reasons for why stuff happens? What does anything mean anymore?

votesmall I honestly can't understand why so many people hate this movie. Sure, not very many people die, in Anacondas, all but three were left! But this film spaces out the deaths perfectly to build suspense. Another criticism is that anacondas and tigers aren't native to Borneo. But, if you were to take movies like independence day and Jurassic park for inaccuracies and plot holes, you would have much longer lists than anacondas. This film remains one of my favorite movie purchases, at 3 dollars, along with toy story 2, which I got for only a dollar, because it was missing the bonus disc. But the only reason I really wanted to see this movie was because I saw an ad for dish that advertised it. When I finally saw anaconda several years later, I remembered the ad and rented it. (Actually, it isn't an official sequel.) Although the cover was neat, the tagline and the title were cheesy. However, upon watching, I noticed that the director was Dwight h. Little, the man behind how awesome Halloween 4 was. He made it realistic, but other films, 5 and 6 for example, don't feel like the setting is Illinois. The acting was superb, with a cast playing cringing and squeamish executives, scientists and researchers. The special effects are awesome, and in my opinion, this film is better than anaconda because it is more believable and suspenseful. Okay, in my opinion, there are few creature features worth watching. Jaws, jaws 2, deep blue sea, python, anaconda, abominable, arachnophobia, the Jurassic park trilogy, red water and the carnosaur movies (guilty pleasures) and anacondas: the hunt for the blood orchid.