Anacondas: Trail of Blood (2009)

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.

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.

Let's start it of with the acting. When I watch a movie, I expect it to feel real. I expect it to feel natural. When I was watching this movie I felt horrified by how the directors can actually think that people start dialogs like they do in this movie.The effects does not feel real and the plot has definitely been used before. And the way the movie flow and the way things happen, feel so fake. And not like some kind of Quentin Tarantino movie either.To top it all of I feel like they made the wrong actors play the wrong characters. None of the voices feel like a fit.Still, if you are really bored, You could watch it. But you should not watch this film to be amused.

Anacondas: Trail of Blood is the sequel to Anaconda, Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid, and Anaconda 3: Offspring. Now in my opinion, three was the weakest entry. Four was better because it had better CGI, acting, and FX. However, this was not enough to save the film.The film is about the baby Anaconda from the third film who is cut in half and regenerates into two snakes. We also see the return of the blood orchid from the second film. It is explained a lot more in how it works and a new hybrid is created. This was obviously used to establish a connection between the previous films. There are a set of armed men sent into to track down Amanda (The survivor from part 3), who "Knows too much." As usual, the some-what of a plot moves forward as each character is picked off one by one. It was better than the third installment. The snake was more realistic, but it's still clearly CG. It was nice to see the blood orchid again from the second film. It still had blood and gore, but I didn't mind it in this one because it looked more realistic (even though you can still tell it's fake- an improvement over the third film). I think it showed the filmmakers wanted to improved it, so it could be better than the third. But again, it didn't live up to the first two films. It was just a plain old monster movie the SciFi Channel shows all the time. Instead of making Anacondas 3 and 4, they should have titled it after the Python or Boa films and it would be equally as popular. It is not that bad of a film. It is enjoyable if you keep an open mind, but I would have preferred an Anaconda film with a larger budget and it to be released in theaters like the first two. The ending has a set up for an Anaconda 5, but I don't think it will happen. I had always hoped that the Anaconda Series would continue in the future since the release of the second film, but what was released was just an insult to the fans of the first two films. These SciFi films are horrid compared to the older films. The snake was pretty cool and some scenes were entertaining, however, this was not enough to save the film.If you're interested in monster films and don't mind poor CG FX, then I'd say watch the film. Otherwise, don't bother and watch the first two films. The plot is boring, the characters are flat, and it doesn't have any spirit in it. As far as I'm concerned, the last two films in the series have killed off the series.4/10 only for the improvements over the third film.