on January 9, 2005
Films like Anacondas 2: Hunt for the Blood Orchid are why we go to the movies. To escape. To forget our problems. Anacondas does not disappoint. I was enthralled from the moment I pushed play on my DVD player.
The filmography is impressive. There are great panoramic shots of jungles and nice shots of the full moon that gave me chills. The score of native music lends to the mood of being lost in the jungle with a maniac and giant anacondas.
The story is about a group who goes to Borneo to seek rare specimens of the Blood Orchid. These researchers believe the Blood Orchid has chemical properties that can extend a cell's lifespan, thus prolonging life. The expedition does not go as planned, and our friends are soon fighting for their lives.
The little monkey, Kong, is so cute. He is a terrific actor. The director did really well to focus on him so much. The monkey's facial expressions, chattering, his toting goods, and his obvious emotion should win him Best Supporting Monkey. He lent a great deal to the film.
The DVD extras have deleted scenes, trailers, and a featurette on how they made the anaconda effects as well as how the movie was made. The director and some of the actors speak about the making of the film.
I think we could have seen more snakes. I just wanted one final, big showdown with the anacondas.
on January 8, 2005
As dumb as it is, you'll no doubt be highly entertained by Anacondas, the far superior sequel to the 1997 original. This time around it's the greedy co-orperate types who are the real snakes, the reptiles are bigger and scarier, the direction darker and more complex and the fun level higher.
I would have liked to have seen more people gobbled up but it's mighty fine, completely harmless fun for what it is. Anyone judging Anacondas as anything other than popcorn fare doesn't deserve to have their opinion listened to.
on November 7, 2004
The first rule of thumb with most nature-run-amok pictures is they have very little logic, but try to over explain itself to justify its star critter. Lucky for us, this is a sequel, so we aren't bothered by such things. A crew sets out to find a rare flower, but find themelves in a real snake pit of trouble. Again, like most sequels this one has to be bigger, and more. So, they are faced with a larger snake, or should I say snakes. They are everywhere! Lots of action, and plenty of goo and gore make this adventure fun. Still there are some attempts to overexplain things to manufacture a plot. But who needs a plot? Come on people! This is not 'Passion.' It's a snake movie. It is suppossed to not make any sense. Sit back, eat popcorn and enjoy.
on December 25, 2004
The first "Anaconda" featured a crew of filmmakers venturing deep into the Amazon to shoot a documentary. That movie became notable due to the presence of on-the-rise actors like Jennifer Lopez and Owen Wilson. But Anaconda was far from a good movie, no matter who was in it. "Anacondas: Hunt for the blood Orchid" is a sequel in-name-only that ventures into much of the same territory as the first one. A group of medical researchers in NYC believe they have found a way to prolong life. In order to create this revolutionary chemical, they need to hunt for the "Blood Orchid", which blooms every 7 years. The crew must head into the jungles of Borneo and grab the orchid before it again lays to rest.
The first thing I noticed while being introduced to this no-name cast of characters was how much they seemed to be attempting to recreate the crew of the original movie. You have a Spanish woman playing the JLo role, a laid-back beach dude playing the Owen Wilson role and an inner-city kid playing the Ice Cube role. It's almost as though they wanted the same people but the producers were obviously unable to coerce any of the original cast members to come back for a sequel. I kind of knew I was in for a bit of pain when from the get-go none of the characters appealed to me. Worst was the Ice Cube wannabe. His character is hands-down one of the most annoying I've ever come across. He kept uttering lines like "Holmes", "Aiiight" "You da bomb". Aside from reinforcing urban African-American stereotypes to the Nth degree his character served absolutely no purpose. The only truly likeable character in this one was the little pet monkey. That tells you something.
But while I couldn't stand the cast, what made this movie watcheable was the terrific use of set locales. This movie has amazing jungle scenery the whole way through. Whereas in the first Anaconda the entire movie took place aboard a raft while the crew wafted through the Amazon's canal, here the characters get off the boat and venture deep into the thick bushes of the jungle. They come across a whole slew of eye-popping sites. For this reason, along with better scenes of suspense, I found this "Anaconda" to be slightly better than its predecessor. Still when all is said and done this movie had me rooting for the snakes. Not a good thing...
on January 7, 2005
Anacondas. The sequel to the now cult classic first movie. Although the two movies have little in common (save the large snakes), the sequel takes a suprising twist. It focuses more on the human charachters (and the lovable monkey) and less on the snakes.
Anacondas plot is nothing spectacular. Big greedy corporation decides to go get a plant to make fountain of youth pills. Of course, the plant is in the middle of a third world jungle full of vicious snakes during the mating season. Some company people go and try to get the plant, while trying to avoid being eaten.
However, the suprise with the sequel is that it focuses on the human elelemts rather then an all out snake feast, and I personally think it works. Although we dont get much charachter development with the humans, I did come to like most of them, and felt sad when a few of them died. I especially liked the river boat captain, who reminded me of Han Solo from Star wars. Of course we also have the African American comic relief charachter ("She sliced she diced!", funniest line of the movie). And then theres the main bad guy, who's like Burke from Aliens. All (s)he cares about is money and profit, while everyone else wants to get out alive. Of course, this dosent go well with him, and he decides to do some rather nasty (and evil) stuff.
The Anacondas themselves appear less then last time, but they are bigger and apparently more vicious. I am a little dissapointed that we didint get more snake action like the first movie, but this one focuses on the humans. The effects used to create the beasts were a little bit better (especially the "snake moving underwater" shots), but for the most part are at the same level of the last movie. No better, no worse.
Although other people complain about the cliche driven plot, I say "So what?" It didint affect me while watching the movie. I didint care how they used stuff from "Jaws" and the cliche steryotypes. There were a few good materials sprinkled into the mix, such as the monkey (Which you care about more then the humans), and the rock spider (the first death caused by the spider is sad to watch).
In the end, I was suprised by Anacondas. It focused more on the human charachters then the snakes, and I think it paid off. I recommend it as a casual viewing experience.
on December 10, 2004
Anacondas does exactly what is says on the tin. Anyone going to see or renting Anacondas expecting greatness does not deserve to be reviewing the movie.
It was fun, unpretentious and it entertained me. That's all I expected it to do and I did the job well. I will certainly buy this DVD when it comes out.
At the very least, you cannot disagree that it is better than the rather flat original.
on October 7, 2004
They should have left the snakes in peace. Like sharks, snakes have no over evil intention towards humans or anyone else who comes crashing through their home turf in search of a red flower which would appear to prolong life - and I would wager if they had larger brains they would think the whole concept as ridiculous as I do. I supported their systematic munching of this group of materialistic morons in the same way I supported the one snake decimating the unlucky film crew who rescue Jon Voight in the original 1997 film. But this time we have no capable actors (Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and Eric Stoltz make this new lot seem like Shakespearian auteurs), and unlike "Jaws", no visionary director to provide a shred of noble decency to nature's denizens.
However, the CGI effects do provide a few exceptional moments of fright. And how often can one say in this new cinematic world of computer-generated reality that the CGI effects were the best part of the experience?
Johnny Messner, Matthew Marsden, Morris Chestnut, Salli Richardson, and Eugene Byrd comprise our hapless group of adventurers, this time attempting to reach the Blood Orchid - a flower that apparently grows on one ten-foot square bush in one location on the planet and blooms once every seven years: who comes up with this crap? Unfortunately, the orchid has also made the indigenous anacondas oversized... and there are a lot of them... and it's mating season, so they're unnaturally vicious in their apparent horniness. The players in this farce are interchangeable - each one a worse actor than the last, their characters based so thoroughly on horror/suspense caricatures that if they turned a corner and were fighting aliens or tigers or the daunting prospect of manipulating a remote control they probably wouldn't lose what audience attention they sacrificed in the elongated, badly written opening sequences.
It's not long before their boat sinks and the snakes start chomping (and then puking up so they can munch again, a fact which should NOT have surprised these unfortunate souls - didn't they see the original?) And the audience, having forked over $10 for this serpentine mess, begins cheering on the anacondas as they pick off the Emerson admissions rejects.
In the studio's literature on this film, you might joyfully encounter this description of these events: "But when a group of scientists finds the sacred flower, they encounter an evil they never imagined, and realize they may never leave the jungle again." Don't you just love it? Human beings, motivated consequentially by pure greed and inconsequentially by petty bickering and lust, go charging into the forest with nothing more than a rotting boat, a few flashlights and a laptop, discover their position on the food chain sits tragically below big ol' snakes... and it's the SNAKES that are evil.
Well, don't let their cousins in the Hollywood food chain slither into your wallet and sink their fangs into a ten-spot. Recoil, dear reader, and go see a film that DOESN'T have its head up its Asp.
on January 6, 2005
Truly I didn't even view this movie as a sequel to the Jennifer Lopez flick. And I suppose it's really not except that both movies deal with giant snakes eating people. There were no returning characters, and the locations were different. That being said, I thought Anacondas was about as good as Anaconda.
I didn't rent this movie expecting spectacular acting and a great plot. I expected some cheap thrills and some pretty good special effects. The special effects were there, but there were no surprises in the thrill category. I thought for a while that there would be a good scene or two involving someone getting bitten by the paralysis-inducing stone spider biting someone, but the payoff was only okay. Yes, some folks get bitten by the spider and of course become snake vittles, but I really thought the scenes could have been a little more thrilling.
The acting is okay. Whether or not the actors are great actors is hard to say. The script doesn't really allow for much thespian shining. The movie has its token characters: a gruff but likable boat captain, greedy people willing do sacrifice life for their own good, innocent people who end up as snake food, the heroes who carry on after watching their friends get swallowed whole, and the obligatory animal, in this case a monkey.
I wasn't disappointed with Anacondas. I expected an entertaining 90 minutes of snakes terrorizing people and that's what I got. However, it could have been better. I only mildly recommend the movie. If you have an hour and a half and want some mindless entertainment, Anacondas is a decent space filler.
on December 6, 2004
I saw this movie in theaters and it wasnt bad. I didnt walk out feeling that i just wasted 9 bucks on a horrible movie. The actors werent bad and neither was the snake. Hell, even the story wasnt too bad. Come on folks, we want action and not an in-depth storyline with character development anyway, do we?...then I read the reviews about poor special effects and was amazed. Poor special effects? The special effects were much better in the second film. The acting was much better in the second film as well if you exclude the acting talents of Eric Stolts & John Voigt(sp?), from the first.
I even plan on purchasing the dvd when it is released. I gave this flick 4 stars considering their budget restraints. Though if i were to compare it to every other giant snake flick ever made--and their are alot of them out there--then this would be 5-Star all the way. So i say, ignore the negatives and buy this movie for it is definitely better-than-average. Enjoy!!!
on December 12, 2004
i seen horrible cheesy movies but this 1 doesnt come close guys now i probably raised a disagreement somewhere but thats part of reviews right?
anyway just a quick rundown for those who havent checked this out yet its basically a team of young scientists who are planning a trip to Borneo somewhere near Vietnam if im not mistaken to attain an orchid that makes you young forever and along the way they encounter problems with their boat, escaping huge anacondas that dont know when to stop, and somehow surviving...
thats basically the storyline you have to follow. i seen this in theaters for free so i couldnt complain much... i thought it was good enough to own on DVD so you be the judge.