RoboRabbit89 I own the original Anaconda on VHS, my mom and I found it back in I think 2012.( I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of it but I do like it). I think we got it from an acquaintance, anyway I just recently seen this one a couple of days ago and I thought it was honestly a pretty good sequel to the first.The boat captain's pet monkey named Kong was so cute, my mom and I really liked him. The characters in this one aren't bad, they we're written fairly well, I liked the boat captain and at least a couple of the scientist, in movies like this you know at least one of them goes bad.The Anacondas in this are kinda cool since the film-makers didn't use puppeteer-ed props the used full CGI effects for the snakes their was one crocodile puppet-ed prop use in one scene which wasn't too bad. Director Dwight Little did a decent job with this film, I've only seen a couple of his films like Murder at 1600 which I own and I think the live action film of Tekken but this film was alright I liked it.Overall a decent film, I liked that it was a light monster movie and that it was in the same tone as the first.I give it a 4/10. A pretty good sequel to the first film. Give it a look.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very scary movie. The original Anaconda is very scary. But this sequel is scarier. This a very scary movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie then no movie will scary you. Some scientist go into Amazon in find an Orchid that they think could be cure for cancer. They find group of big man eating snakes. This is very scary. One mistake they made is that there are no tigers in South America. But still no big deal. This a such a cool movie. That is should be no big deal. This movie is a must see. It is very intense. You my not want to watch it alone. Try not to scream in terror. If you thought the The Exorcist was the scariest movie ever made. You could be in for a surprise.

Ricardo Mokwena The first Anaconda was exceptional with a realistic created puppet version of the snake, some eye candy courtesy of 'Jennifer Lopez',the creepy portrayal of an out of control frantic by 'Jon Voight' and 'Ice Cube' whom supposedly was to spark some flavor to the movie.Despite the not so good storyline it all worked well and the movie was a box office success.But then the sequel came through with a well written storyline,catchy dialog and not so famous actors whom all were heading for the biggest break in the careers had the movie become a hit.The atmosphere was well groomed as the audience worldwide was anticipating a sequel where there would be more snakes and more people to feed from, but the latter failsMake no mistake though as the plot unfolds well with good characterization 'although some of the actors depiction of the characters were too bogus as well as aggravating such as 'Jonny Messner' as 'Bill Johnson' in the lead role',who was intended to be atrocious and charming,but turned out to be more misplaced and feeble.The only convincing actor was 'Eugene Byrd' as 'Cole' who turned out to be in the wrong movie.The production design was terrific.The action is far too over the top especially the scene with the crocodile and the snakes movements are too unbelievable making the movie fade away from its original concept of using puppets.It doesn't build up and creep up on you as its predecessor and other movies of animals attacking people like 'Jaws'(which was done on a shoestring budget),'The Ghost & The Darkness' (which is packed with the fright and the seriousness of a jungle horror adventure).Instead what the director 'Dwight Little' wanted to achieve turns into humor as it all happens too fast and leaves a lot to the mind.I found myself laughing most of the time than having the lights scared out of me and wanting to know when will it end.Anaconds 2 could have worked well as a comedy instead.I recommend it for those who are looking for an adventure but with nothing serious in mind and very forgettable.

Steve Pulaski Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid takes a second-rate idea and stockpiles it with third-rate characters but a first-rate setting. Clearly a film with ambition, yet financial and writing limitations, to call it poorly made is simply far too extreme, yet to call it a worthy sequel to is predecessor is going too far.I'm one of the few who appreciated the original 1997 Anaconda, with Ice Cube and Jennifer Lopez headlining the picture. What can I say? I'm biased towards films where creatures of nature are human's enemies and considering they're an easy genre to find but not an easy one to do well, if the film has gleefully corny aspects, decently likable characters, and some fun little instances with its characters caught in the middle, I can appreciate them when I consider the genre they belong to. In terms of "creature features," I have always been particularly very fond of the famous Tremors franchise, but that's a whole other story I'm not willing to retell.Our story concerns a group of researchers off to explore the island of Borneo, where deep in the jungle exists the mysterious and precious "blood orchid," a plant whose powers could provide humans with a longer, healthier lifestyle and quite possibly rid them of any current diseases. The researchers are Jack (Matthew Marsden), Ben (Nicholas Gonzalez), Gordon (Morris Chestnut), and Tran (Karl Yune), Samantha (KaDee Strickland), Gail (Salli Richardson-Whitfield), and Cole (Eugene Byrd), all commanded by the likes of the cut-throat Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner). Many of the characters are notably capable, with the exception of the dead-end Cole, who seems to be just itching to say the next loud, unnecessary zinger.So, they venture out to this island, it's raining like hell, everyone's patience are thin, and just to give things a little extra spice, there is a giant, man-eating anaconda who has just found some men to chew on. After one of the members is eaten, one of the characters, Bill, I believe, makes the assumption that the anaconda will no longer feast after being filled up by one of their researchers...unless it's mating season. And, yes; it's that time of year.Back to the third-rate characters, it seems as if there is nothing holding these thin characters together but glue and duct tape. They're horrible oversimplifications of recognizable humans, and are cut from the thinnest, ugliest cloth that their appeal (as characters not as actors, who are mostly efficient) wears dreadfully thin. Fortunately, they exist in a film with fine, vibrant cinematography, equal parts intoxicating and mesmerizing. Much like in the first Anaconda, there is something so pleasantly real about hearing the annoying chirping of bugs and almost feeling the sticky, moist sweat of the humidity-soaked jungle. It's a tasteless environment captured perfectly on screen.The scares are pretty mild, where as in Anaconda they were somewhat enjoyable. The effects are clearly limited, but not appalling. It's a creature feature, so one shouldn't expect the CGI to be that of high artistry, but what bothers me is how indistinct, dark, and murky everything is for most of the film. When night falls is when most of the action occurs, and we're plagued by dim, blurry darkness for much of the film.Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is a rather unremarkable stroll through the jungle of making a sequel for a nineties film in 2004 "just because." The film is only made slightly memorable because of Matthew Marsden and Johnny Messner's gifted performances, and its overall impressively cinematography. However, what it mainly lacks is direction, fun, surprise, scares, and most importantly, the 1997 film's biggest asset; Jon Voight.Starring: Johnny Messner, KaDee Strickland, Matthew Marsden, Nicholas Gonzalez, Eugene Byrd, Karl Yune, Salli Richardson, and Morris Chestnut. Directed by: Dwight H. Little.