- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
70Sufficient cheap thrills and enough of the prevailing camp quality.
-
A highly entertaining movie assured of its genre-jumping potential.
-
70Sublimely trashy, this conceptual sequel to 1997's surprise hit, "Anaconda," doesn't expect to be taken any more seriously than its schlock predecessor, and keeps its tongue-in-cheek thrills flowing rapidly.
-
70It's one of those "I-can't-believe-I'm-enjoying-this" kind of things.
-
70Funny, suspenseful, and well paced, this is definitely the summer's best time waster.
-
The charming thing about Anacondas is that it neither takes itself too seriously nor is it steeped in postmodern irony.
-
58For all its improbable characters, wretched dialogue and stock situations, the movie has an earnest dumbness that sneaks up on you to be surprisingly entertaining.
-
50Competent formula entertainment, but doesn't make that leap into pure barminess that inspired "Anaconda."
-
To be fair, it's little better or worse than the original. But, to be honest, the original--minus its nascent stars--wasn't very good.
-
50From its jungle forays to its waterfall tumbles to its deadly spider bites - is entirely, utterly unoriginal.
-
50At least director Dwight Little (Free Willy 2) gives us enough B-movie speed to keep Orchid from becoming a fountain of aging.
-
50Supremely silly but undeniably fun sequel.
-
50A programmer that once upon a time would have played on the bottom half of double bills, Anacondas has no pretensions and gets its little job done effectively, providing some small-scale laughs and chills for the late summer season.
-
Still manages to one-up its predecessor, 1997's unintentionally campy "Anaconda."
-
40More tongue in cheek than its predecessor, and yet less over the top, it won't do any permanent damage. Of course, it won't leave much of a lasting impression, either.
-
40Exactly as ordinary as you're already expecting it's going to be.
-
40Director Dwight Little, who has made many mediocre films as well as the gleefully gory Robert Englund version of "The Phantom of the Opera," gets at least one thing right -- he really does take time to establish the characters.
-
It's never a good sign when the creepiest moment in a movie about monstrous 50-foot snakes is the sight of 2-inch leeches sucking on someone's back.
-
38The biggest problem with the corny horror film Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is that its titular reptiles are about as scary as jellied eels.
-
38There's nothing really wrong with it -- it's bad, but no worse than it needs to be, which is the problem.
-
33There's no enjoyably outlandish hiss to this variation on the formula, and no Ice Cube or Owen Wilson, either. This time, a ship of capitalist fools (and no movie stars, unless you count utility player Morris Chestnut as a headliner) steams along the river in Borneo.
-
30The real problem isn't that Anacondas is bad – it's just so bland, so unremarkable, so by-the-numbers, and so instantly forgettable that bad might be a step up.
-
30What they don't do often enough is battle anacondas. It's all tease and no payoff.
-
Clearly a bottom-feeder.
-
25This movie didn't have to be good, but that it's so boring in its badness is tough to swallow.
-
25The sequel might have the formula down, but it lacks everything that made "Anaconda'' fun.
-
25The refined taste insists on risibly bad, on hysterically bad, on poke-your-seatmate-in-the-ribs bad, and this falls well short of that hallowed mark -- it's just routinely bad.
-
20When the CGI snakes finally arrive, they look like they've just returned from a guest spot on "Charmed;" if the film had cut any more corners, it would have had to borrow graphics from an old Intellivision game.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 10 out of 16
-
Mixed: 1 out of 16
-
Negative: 5 out of 16
-
Anacondas is an entertaining and enjoyable sequel that is on par with the original film, which I liked.