Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid Reviews

  • Aug 11, 2019

    It's a pretty average but fun monster movie. As a sequel to Anaconda (1997) it doesn't feel like a sequel to that movie excpet for one line I wouldn't be surprised if the script for the film started out as a movie about hunting for the blood orchid while avoiding jungle monsters but when the studio heads at Screen Gems read the script they probably said "I don't think anyones gonna see this generic monster movie about finding a flower that's the pharmaceutical equivalent to the fountain of youth but with some tweaking we can turn this into a sequel to Anaconda (1997) why not are company is owned by Sony". The best an scariest scene in the movie is where Mitchell is paralyzed after Jack puts a spider with paralyzing venom on him to prevent him from calling for help cause he still wants the orchid and after he leaves a giant anaconda slithers in an eats him alive. It's a pretty scary scene cause the thought of being eaten alive is scary enough as it is but also take in the fact that you can't run away or call for help just makes it really terifing to think about. All you can do is watch helplessly as the snake eats you while your still breathing. As generic as it is I do enjoy watching this movie maybe because I was 10 when I first watched it. So if you enjoy generic run of the mill monster movies look no further.

    It's a pretty average but fun monster movie. As a sequel to Anaconda (1997) it doesn't feel like a sequel to that movie excpet for one line I wouldn't be surprised if the script for the film started out as a movie about hunting for the blood orchid while avoiding jungle monsters but when the studio heads at Screen Gems read the script they probably said "I don't think anyones gonna see this generic monster movie about finding a flower that's the pharmaceutical equivalent to the fountain of youth but with some tweaking we can turn this into a sequel to Anaconda (1997) why not are company is owned by Sony". The best an scariest scene in the movie is where Mitchell is paralyzed after Jack puts a spider with paralyzing venom on him to prevent him from calling for help cause he still wants the orchid and after he leaves a giant anaconda slithers in an eats him alive. It's a pretty scary scene cause the thought of being eaten alive is scary enough as it is but also take in the fact that you can't run away or call for help just makes it really terifing to think about. All you can do is watch helplessly as the snake eats you while your still breathing. As generic as it is I do enjoy watching this movie maybe because I was 10 when I first watched it. So if you enjoy generic run of the mill monster movies look no further.

  • Jul 18, 2019

    Better than the original

    Better than the original

  • Jul 16, 2019

    A sequel that provides the viewer with a handsome animal horror without much innovation.

    A sequel that provides the viewer with a handsome animal horror without much innovation.

  • Mar 04, 2019

    Don't think I like this better than its predecessor. If you think this is bad enough, check out the series' direct-to-video sequels.

    Don't think I like this better than its predecessor. If you think this is bad enough, check out the series' direct-to-video sequels.

  • May 09, 2018

    There is only one notable difference between this film and it's predecessor is that: instead of just being hunted, the characters are actually hunting for something too. And I will give you one guess as to what that something is. My grade for the film: a solid D Final-note: Believe me, I am just as surprised as you are to find out that more people approve of this film than it's much better, and ultimately more tame prequel. If you can even say that?... so bad I can barely remember how bad it was.

    There is only one notable difference between this film and it's predecessor is that: instead of just being hunted, the characters are actually hunting for something too. And I will give you one guess as to what that something is. My grade for the film: a solid D Final-note: Believe me, I am just as surprised as you are to find out that more people approve of this film than it's much better, and ultimately more tame prequel. If you can even say that?... so bad I can barely remember how bad it was.

  • May 04, 2017

    The first Anaconda, from 1997, was panned by everybody, although I found it to be very entertaining. But then comes the sequel: It's competent enough, the actors to there part, the characters are memorable enough, but the special effects are much weaker. The real problem with this movie is that it's full of horror cliches and it's terribly predictable. It may entertaining nonsense, but it's still nonsense. Reminds me of a Syfy movie. There's no real big reason to see this film, unless you liked the first Anaconda, or if you're a fan of cheap shit.

    The first Anaconda, from 1997, was panned by everybody, although I found it to be very entertaining. But then comes the sequel: It's competent enough, the actors to there part, the characters are memorable enough, but the special effects are much weaker. The real problem with this movie is that it's full of horror cliches and it's terribly predictable. It may entertaining nonsense, but it's still nonsense. Reminds me of a Syfy movie. There's no real big reason to see this film, unless you liked the first Anaconda, or if you're a fan of cheap shit.

  • Apr 17, 2017

    It was loads better the the 1st movie. It's more plot driven and some nicer character moments. Generally I thought the actors performers were more believable in Anacondas. I like the villain in this greater than Voight in Anaconda. I also like that the snakes were not only danger. Yeah not bad for a B movie. Better than Lake Placid.

    It was loads better the the 1st movie. It's more plot driven and some nicer character moments. Generally I thought the actors performers were more believable in Anacondas. I like the villain in this greater than Voight in Anaconda. I also like that the snakes were not only danger. Yeah not bad for a B movie. Better than Lake Placid.

  • Mar 31, 2017

    2.5/5. It won't blow your minds or anything, but the 2nd Anaconda film is much better than the original. It's not worth going out of your way to see, but there are worse survival-horror movies you could watch.

    2.5/5. It won't blow your minds or anything, but the 2nd Anaconda film is much better than the original. It's not worth going out of your way to see, but there are worse survival-horror movies you could watch.

  • Feb 05, 2017

    Though it may be just another cheesy B-monster movie, Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid fares much better than its loose 1997 predecessor with a unique narrative and solid cast.

    Though it may be just another cheesy B-monster movie, Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid fares much better than its loose 1997 predecessor with a unique narrative and solid cast.

  • Nov 30, 2016

    This sequel is actually better than the first! Terrific plot with a great cast but it's not horror, it's sci-fi. Cole (played by Eugene Byrd) was hilarious and really made this movie worth while lol! Morris Chestnut did a phenomenal job and it's always nice to see a knockout beauty like Salli Richardson on the set ;)

    This sequel is actually better than the first! Terrific plot with a great cast but it's not horror, it's sci-fi. Cole (played by Eugene Byrd) was hilarious and really made this movie worth while lol! Morris Chestnut did a phenomenal job and it's always nice to see a knockout beauty like Salli Richardson on the set ;)