Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid. The sequel that no one asked for. I guess since the Sci-fi Channel plays a giant snake movie EVERY weekend, studio execs figured there must be an audience for this tripe. Plot: an attractive cast of almost famous people go for a boat ride in the middle of the jungle and are attacked by giant snakes. Yeah, it's pretty much just like the first film, except J-lo is no where in sight so I guess that makes it a little bit better. I felt sorry for Jon Voight for making an appearance in the original. This time I feel sorry for director Dwight Little. He directed the underrated Halloween 4 and his older films are far superior to Anacondas. The script is by the numbers so don't expect any surprises. The only surprise I found was that the computer-generated snakes have come a long way from the original film. Stay tuned for Anaconda vs. Boa vs. Python.

Fmovies: I am not a fan really of the first Anaconda, and was expecting this movie to be worse. Actually I think it is better than the first Anaconda for quite a few reasons. While the story is very predictable, the script occasionally weak but also with enough humour and snappy lines to savour, the direction too low-key in places and the pace uneven, what made Anacondas:The Hunt for the Blood Orchid better was more suspense and less cheese which I appreciated. Also any scenes that needed suspense did have it and in a satisfying amount too. The scenery is splendid, the effects are quite decent even if the anacondas are underused somewhat and the music further adds to the atmosphere. The acting is better for me here too, the leads were likable and efficient enough and at least there wasn't Jon Voight and his dreadful accent to drag things down this time. Overall, entertaining if flawed. 6/10 Bethany Cox

My own personal favourite sub-genre of film is "Animals Eating People". I don't know if that is an actual sub-genre but that is what I call it. The best of it's kind being JAWS (of course) and others if it's ilk being Piranha, Alligator, Lake Placid, The Edge, and Anaconda.

I enjoyed Anaconda but surprisingly, this film, which is a sequel in title only really, is a much better film. There are tighter suspense sequences, reasonable acting, and good visual effects. I tend to be fonder of anamatronic effects over CGI but these are pretty good. The original Anaconda had pretty good anamatronic snakes but just because of the nature of the animal, they looked a bit hokey. They might have been scary if you were scared of snakes but otherwise they looked like big Muppet snakes who cracked up into big smiles every time they attacked.

The CGI here lends itself to visually ridiculous touches like big fangs on snakes that don't naturally have big teeth but if you can watch this movie at all, you will suspend your disbelief. Good fun, good thrills, no Oscars. Enjoy.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid fmovies. The story combines elements of first film and provides exciting and stirring entertainment .It concerns about a scientific chief(Dennis Ardnt)assigns to his group(Morris Chesnut,Mattew Mardsen,Strickland,Salli Richardson,Eugene Byrd among others)encounter a strange flower called ¨Blood orchid¨that could grant lasting life.They are going out from New York City until Borneo jungle where is allegedly the rare flower.They hire an adventurer(Johnny Messner) leading the expedition by means a boat through the river and a dangerous forest.Meanwhile they confront each other and attacked by a pack of large Anacondas which are deadlier and bigger but the orchid gives longer existence. The giant snakes savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators.

The movie delivers the goods with hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Anacondas appear with outstanding special effects.The giant snakes are majority made by computer generator but also by Animatronics and seem totally alive.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the Anacondas,running,bound and leaps or dangling over a well which contains a snakes nest.The Anacondas ,themselves,of course ,are the authentic stars and they're marvellous terrifyingly astounding and almost totally convincing.Spectacular music adjusted to the action by Nerida Tyson and colorful cinematography by Stephen Windon.The motion picture is regularly directed by Dwight H. Little,an expert action genre such TV movies(24,Prison break,Bones)as cinema(Rapid fire,Masked for death,Free Willy 2,Murder at 1600).The film will like to former(Anaconda with Jennifer Lopez) film fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic.No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes.

Along with "Catwoman", here's another summer movie that really wasn't bad at all. In fact, I think I liked it a little better than the first one. The plot had a few unexpected zigs and zags, some chills and quite a bit of genuine humor. Everyone's a little too pretty (even the guys) to be believed as a representative cross-section of humanity but that's Hollywood for you.

The fact that there are no anacondas in Borneo mildly detracts but I guess that's a minor squabble (someone really should have either done more research or simply placed the movie back in South America). If you're looking for a light summer entertainment, it's perfect.

Series note: Although this is the second film in the Anaconda series, there is no need to watch the films in order. They are merely thematic companions, sharing some similarities of plot and structure. They are not constructed as chapters in a novel.

When it is discovered that an exotic flower found only in Borneo and blooming only every seven years may hold the key to life extension, a large pharmaceutical company sends a team of researchers to acquire samples for study. Making the task thornier, the samples must be obtained while the plant is in bloom, and as the film begins, it will only be in bloom a few more weeks. In increasing layers of difficulty, it's rainy season in Borneo and only Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) is crazy enough to take the team upriver in his ramshackle boat before the season ends, despite the fact that they're offering $50,000, and as they make their way upstream, of course the team runs into giant anacondas of the type found in the first film.

Like Anaconda, Anacondas has been getting a fairly bad rap and I can't quite figure out why. Sure, some people have complained about inaccuracies in the films when compared to facts in the actual world, but seriously, what's wrong with anyone who'd expect fictional films like Anacondas to be educational or largely a documentary? The films are basically monster flicks, with the degree of predictability that usually entails, but what would one be expecting otherwise? Both films are certainly internally consistent, with captivating stories, fine performances and well executed technical aspects--directing, editing, production design, cinematography (particularly beautiful in this entry, and the Fijian landscapes are often breathtaking), and so on.

And in fact, Anacondas has much more than just competent artistry. From the first frames to the last, this is one heck of a thrill ride, with plot twists and turns around every corner mimicking the river and the coils of the titular beast. It has basically nonstop suspense, it cleverly incorporates horror elements from psycho humans to haunted houses (the caves and the village they come across near the climax are basically haunted houses in structure and tone). A number of sequences will stick in your mind for a long time, such as the intense waterfall scene and the great "wading" scene. There are also poignant subtexts about materialism and the desire to be immortal versus emotional and pragmatic concern for fellow humans. The new writing team even manages to insert thought-provoking dilemmas related to utilitarianism.

There are a number of interesting parallels to Anaconda (1997), with an equally interesting and capable motley crew of characters played by a skilled cast. It may be a different locale, but the gist is still an Apocalypse Now (1979)-styled trip up a river where the complexly interacting crew must encounter and overcome various obstacles, not the least of which are members of their own group, including initially veiled villains who are as much of a snake as the more literal, reptilian villains.

Director Dwight H. Little also gives us an amusing alternate world take on Anaconda's Paul Sarone (inimitably performed in that film by Jon Voight) in Anacondas' short lived John Livingston (Andy Anderson), whose name ties us in to famed 19th Century African explorer David Livingstone, and the many filmic depictions of the same, including The Lost Jungle (1934) and Stanley and Livingstone (1939). That's not the only references to classic