SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Marc Davis 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.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain 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.

manjodude Aaaargh! The dummy Anaconda spoils the party again! So many times while watching this movie, I felt - if only the damn snake could look more realistic! Probably low budgeting forced the creators to not create them as good as they looked in the 1997 JLO starrer or even the 2004 one? But at least they could have been careful with it's size. Some scenes show the freak snake to be long, consequent scenes show it to be shorter, and then long again! The growth hormones seem to have a mind of their own :) If not for this dumb snake & its crazy body, Anaconda 4 could have done decently at the box office.Crystal Allen does a better job in the sequel to Anaconda 3(2008 release), with some nice action scenes too(towards the end). Rest of the actors have small-bit roles, so none of them really linger in memory. I really felt John Rhys-Davies who plays the evil billionaire Murdoch(in Anaconda 3 too) had lot of potential in his role but the makers mess up again. Pity his talent gets chewed for nothing! Majority of the actors here, except maybe for Crystal Allen and Calin Stanciu(an explorer in the jungle), have this blank, disinterested expression on their face whenever they see mangled bodies or encounter the monstrous serpent itself. It's possible they had other talents beside acting for being here? Hmmm, I wonder what those might be....Verdict: Better work than the prequel but still a shoddy show. I think now is a good time to lay the Anaconda series to rest before more producers' money and pants get swallowed alive :p

Jan Strydom This fourth installment in the ANACONDA series is in fact better than the third but miles away from the first two, it features returning actors Crystal Allen who is not a very good actress no offense intended, and John Rhys-Davies who plays his role excellently I might add, the supporting cast which is different than third one is in fact a lot better group of actors then those used in the third one, which is one of the things that made this film better.Crystal Allen is actually a very attractive woman, but her acting as seen in this one and the previous film is very poor, most of the time she's rubber face and at serious situations she doesn't really play her part very convincingly, she just seems like she doesn't want to put much effort into her acting, like she's just trying to make a quick buck and go home.Overall, an average snake movie but Ms. Allen would go up for a raspberry award for her acting, the film itself is just a time passer nothing more.