Anacondas: Trail of Blood

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.

Seriously, They must have known that this would suck. Yet they still go ahead and produce it. Why?

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

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.

...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!