Python 2

Well, when you sit down to watch a movie such as the 2002 movie "Python 2", then you know exactly what you are getting yourself into. And director Lee McConnell and writer Jeff Rank delivers exactly what you'd expect - a campy and goofy creature feature with questionable effects.

The storyline is generic, even by creature feature standards. So don't get your hopes up for a slice of cinematic masterwork here in "Python 2". The storyline is straightforward, for sure, but it is predictable to the core.

As for the special effects, well I will say that the effects worked well enough to their purpose. Now, it wasn't particularly impressive effects, and some was even downright laughable. But hey, this is a creature feature, so a relatively crappy special effects and CGI display is to be expected.

I am a sucker for creature features, though I know that I am 95% likely to be in for a less than mediocre movie experience whenever I sit down to watch such a movie. And that was also the case with "Python 2". So at least I wasn't disappointed.

The python itself, well in concept it was interesting. However, in translation to the screen, some of the appeal died due to questionable special effects. And the sounds they opted for the snake was just downright ludicrous. It made absolutely no sense that snakes can growl, snarl and such. It just added such a goofy level to the movie, and it was dragging the movie down. Snakes are silent killers, with occasional hissing. It is not rocket science!

It was actually nice to see the likes of William Zabka and Dana Ashbrook in a movie such as this, and they were actually the reason why the movie managed to stay afloat and be watchable.

If you enjoy the usual goofy and campy creature features, then chances are you will mildly enjoy "Python 2". However, I doubt that this movie will ever return to my media player for a second viewing ever.

But far from being a good film. The snakes (there's two this time)look better this time and they put a little more effort into it. Now the snake is being transported in a titanium container (except how could a sixty-foot snake be crammed into that tiny thing? Probably the best graphics of the movie is when they're hunting the big snake and they paralyze it with an electric gun and it falls down in slow motion while howling loudly. That part was actually a pretty decent shot for a movie like this. But the rest of it was kind of cheesy. Oh, and why would you stick a pistol that's set to fire in your back pocket? That's just suicide. That'd be of great help if you're running from those big snakes and get shot down your leg. Oh, and the character who had that gun in her back pocket, she wasn't even able to see a man standing five feet away from her, yet she's doing a rather good job of finding her way around. So much for being nearly blind. Overall, it's a lot better than the first one, but still not a movie I'd want to watch very often.

Python (2000)

BOMB (out of 4)

Robert England plays a mad scientist who created a huge python that spits acid. I'm terrified of snakes, which means I usually have a good time being scared with snake movies but this one here was downright awful and ranks as one of the worst films I've seen the past twenty years. The acting is atrocious, the screenplay laughable and the special effects are terrible looking.

Python 2 (2002)

BOMB (out of 4)

The American government brings home an eight-five foot snake, which eventually escapes and starts eating people. This is another horrid, direct to video horror movie but it's slightly better than the first film since this one here runs ten minutes shorter. Is that any kind of recommendation?

Someone with Science Fiction clout, but no talent, in TV programming has decided that giant snakes, among the slowest creatures on earth, make frightening movie monsters. Well they don't. I dearly love monster movies, but these snake pictures are simply useless. This one follows the really awful, 'en vogue formula to the hilt, and straight down the slithery slope of utter ennui. In my estimation these "lighter than air, faster than greased pigs" reptiles are utterly without any redeeming "monster" qualities.

The snakes are almost incidental to the film. They are so badly portrayed as to have no personality, and absolutely no sense of dread about them. They are mechanical vehicles of the plot, which is terminally boring from the first scene. The only character I even cared about was the beautiful Russian redhead, and that's just because she is so gorgeous to watch. It seems that the director just didn't know how to portray people with any sense of timing or reality. The characters, and the acting, quickly fell apart under vague and vapid direction. The plot was never in attendance.

The film seemed to drag on forever as inept warriors pointed their fancy guns into dark corners, and blasted away at cartoon snakes to no discernable avail. The snakes moved much faster than the action. I felt that the director was simply trying to figure out how to prolong this mess long enough to eke out the requisite 90 minutes, sans commercials. It didn't work. Avoid this mess unless you are addicted to lovely redheads.

Somewhere in Russia an American officer has been tasked to lead some Russian soldiers on a secret mission to capture an 80 foot snake that was created by American scientists and has gotten loose near the Ural Mountains. Not long afterward, the officer, "Colonel Jefferson" (Marcus Aurelius) accomplishes his assigned task and puts the snake aboard an American cargo plane heading for the United States. Unfortunately, some Chechen rebels mistake the plane for a Russian one and shoot it down. This action alerts a Russian army unity nearby who then attack the rebels and subsequently take the mysterious container back to a nearby base. Curious as to what is inside they open it. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I was somewhat surprised by the results. For starters, I expected a movie replete with mindless action and special effects with no regard to anything resembling an in-depth plot or competent acting of any kind. Yet, while there was plenty of mindless action, rather poor special effects, and a predictable plot, I didn't think the acting was necessarily that bad at all. As a matter of fact, I kind of liked the performances of William Zabka (as the CIA agent, "Greg Larsen") and Simmone MacKinnon ("Nadia"). However, having said that, I don't believe this movie was great-or even good-by any means. It simply exceeded my expectations to a certain extent and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.