SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

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.

Leofwine_draca ANACONDA III: OFFSPRING was a surprisingly entertaining little B-movie sequel, packed with cheesy actors, silly dialogue and gobs of gratuitous gore which went a long way into making it a passable piece of fun. Sadly, ANACONDA 4: TRAIL OF BLOOD seems to have forgotten all of the lessons of his predecessor (with which it was shot back-to-back). It's like somebody took the third film and sucked all the life and fun out of it, leaving this a dessicated husk of a film.Much of the fun from the last instalment came about due to David Hasselhoff's unlikely turn as a big game hunter, but there's no such luminary here, apart from one-time action man Linden Ashby. Ashby is woodenly horrible, while returning female lead Crystal Allen seems to have exhausted her acting repertoire in the last movie leaving her lifeless. Still, at least John Rhys-Davies is back, albeit in a cameo which nicely ties up the fate of his stock mad scientist type character.The plot is slimmer than ever, featuring various good guys and bad guys hunting for a genetically modified super-snake which kills off various "redshirt" characters throughout. Sadly, much of the last film's gore quotient is gone, replaced here with B-movie level incident that just isn't on the same scale. Meanwhile, the special effects are pretty bad. About the only superior thing ANACONDA 4 has compared to number three is that the human villains are more interesting, but it's not enough to make this one work.

xheartless 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.

julian kennedy Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood: 4 out of 10: Anaconda 4 has some surprisingly effect scenes in its 88 minutes.There is a car chase towards the end of the film; first the snake is chasing a car, all the while a gun fight has erupted among the passengers and an intruder. There is also a silhouetted chase on a sunset drenched hill between three groups of characters that had no prior knowledge of each other with the snake in the mix. Heck there is even some tender moments between an older gun toting woman and a blond man child lost in the woods as a snake watches them.Much like a previous incarnation, (Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Red Orchid) this movie comes awfully close not needing the snake at all. In fact it, dare I say it, a removal of the anaconda may have made Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood a slightly better film.The non-snake stuff is fairly simple. John Rhys-Davies, in full pick up a paycheck mode, is a bad guy with bone cancer who has financed a cure which involves genetically altering snakes. He hires a hit man (whom brings along six friends who cannot shoot straight and twirl their mustaches) to inexplicably kill the lead scientist (who has disappeared, read been eaten.) The assassin is also asked to kill a blond chick played by Crystal Allen. She acts like an old west gunslinger but is apparently a herpetologist. The blond chick meanwhile is setting explosives in an orchid bed located in one of those ridiculously well lit caves with light bulbs every foot burning 24/7. She runs into what appears to be a fifteen year old boy whom immediately becomes her love interest in a weird Private Lessons kind of twist. He is looking for the base camp where some other unrelated (non-giant snake creating) scientists are digging up a frozen body out of a UFO or something.Like I said the snakes are almost crowded out of their own movie. It is probably for the best. While the CGI is better than many other killer snake movies this is damning with faint praise indeed. The snakes in question don’t look like anacondas or even snakes at all. Replacing shark fins with bear claws does not make the shark scarier. And giving anacondas silly rows of over-sized teeth and the ability to regenerate like the T-1000 (Terminator 2 Judgment Day) does not make them any scarier.Oh and while I picked on the first movie for having anacondas in a jungle, they are after all swamp and marsh dwellers; and picked on the second movie for having them in Borneo, which is in Asia last I checked; I don’t have words to begin to describe the draw dropping silliness of Anacondas in Romania. The Carpathians in fall do not create the proper snake attack vibe unless it is a 60 foot cottonmouth. Also a note to the Sci-fi Channel: If I see “Bear-Shark Claws of Death” on your channel anytime soon I’m coming after you guys. I’m just giving a friendly warning here.