Jeez.
I hope you can act as well as you fillet, Mr.?
Serone.
Paul Serone.
So, tell me Mr. Serone - what does an actor do when his career fails?
Fail?
Who says I fail?
I didn't fail.
Well, you are in a movie with Eric Stoltz about giant man-eating snakes, so I wouldn't
call this a huge success either.
May I ask what you are hunting?
I'm not hunting anything - just reviewing.
The "Anaconda" franchise, actually.
I've seen them.
Oh, well great - you can help me insult them for the next 12 minutes!
This I can do.
And this is Movie Night!
Hello, and welcome to the show, I'm Jonathan Paula.
Tonight, we begin a series of episodes dedicated to monster-movie franchises; and we'll start
with the surprisingly virile "Anaconda" series - which of course began with the titular entry,
"Anaconda".
So bad, it's good.
Despite negative reviews, this $45 million dollar adventure horror film from Luis Llosa
grossed an impressive $136 million at the box office following its April 1997 release.
The 89-minute feature follows a documentary film crew who are taken hostage by a violent
hunter who is on a quest to capture the world's largest snake, the deadly anaconda.
At the film's center - as the enigmatic and dangerous snake hunter - is Academy Award
winning actor Jon Voight.
His character is certifiably insane; with everyone reacting to his creepy and bizarre
behavior with curious indifference.
His sizable paycheck notwithstanding, it's obvious why Voight accepted this unique role:
the cheesy dialogue and scenery-chewing is definitely something he enjoys.
With a weird South American accent and a slicked-back ponytail, Jon went full-bore into this role
without any shame whatsoever.
His character gives some particularly specific advice to his captive shipmates when he remarks,
"Never look in the eyes, of those you kill.
They will haunt you forever.
I know."
Simultaneously captivating and awful, this unique performance is truly the work of a
dedicated actor.
As for his eclectic group of co-stars; each have done excellent work in other projects
- but none are suited for an adventure film like "Anaconda".
The hodge-podge assembly would have been better led by someone like Sylvester Stallone or
Brendan Frasier.
Instead, we're stuck with Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Eric Stoltz, Jonathan Hyde, Owen
Wilson, and Danny Trejo - who may very be the most grossly miscast players in the history
of film.
None of their character profiles are believable; Lopez is supposed to be a film director, Ice
Cube as her stalwart cameraman, or Stoltz as an Amazonian anthropologist?
Only Hyde's portrayal of a prim and proper Englishmen feels authentic.
Considering most of the action takes place on an ugly boat in nondescript jungle rivers,
the cinematography manages to keep things interesting without getting too claustrophobic.
The orchestral themes from Randy Edelman sometimes elicit discomfort during the scarier scenes,
but often feel out-of-place with the darker, PG-13 rated material.
A combination of convincing animatronics, practical effects, and CGI help create the
titular snake - whose slimy appearance and ferocious speed make for one scary monster.
The same cannot be said for the movie's sequels; as the slithering creatures look less and
less realistic with each passing entry.
This picture is a weird experience.
It's objectively quite terrible, but also consistently entertaining.
Technically speaking, it's a reasonably competent production with all the trappings of a major
Hollywood release - but the script, acting, and narrative are all completely dumb.
This conflicting identity may be why the film was nominated for, but lost, all six of its
Razzie awards.
A paradoxically enjoyable entry in the creature-feature genre, "Anaconda" is a must-see cluster of
campy characters and fun action.
And it's also tonight's featured review - so here's what you had to say about it.
Despite its obvious faults, you were favorable to "Anaconda", with the Movie Night audience
rating an average of SEVEN out of ten.
Personally, I thought it was just ALRIGHT.
Now for a review of the first sequel, "Anacondas: Hunt For The Blood Orchid".
A day late and a dollar short.
Seven years after everyone forgot about the mediocre original, Screen Gems decided to
sink $20 million dollars into this even more forgettable sequel.
But somehow, this adventure horror film directed by Dwight H. Little managed to more than triple
its budget after premiering in August of 2004.
The only elements that made "Anaconda" slightly redeemable were Jon Voight's manic performance,
and cool special effects.
So, naturally - when constructing the sequel, this movie's *seven* writers instead copied
the first movie's boneheaded screenplay and moronic character development.
Beat for beat, the 97-minute film shares the same stupid premise: a group of well-to-do
Americans venture deep into the tropical jungles of Borneo to look for the titular flower,
before a hostile character they picked up along the way double-crosses them.
And of course, giant snakes hunt them at every turn.
The predominant theme in this franchise seems to be that humans are more vicious than snakes
- and keeping with that tradition, Matthew Marsden does solid work as the treacherous
antagonist who betrays everyone for personal gain.
Morris Chestnut, KaDee Strickland, and the rest of the TV-talent are nothing more than
hors d'oeuvres for the hungry man-eating reptiles.
None of them are unique, memorable, or even interesting - but watching them get crushed
and eaten alive does provide for some fleeting thrills.
With component visuals, satisfying deaths, and a fast-paced narrative, this PG-13 rated
project is honestly far better than it needs to be.
But it's also exactly as stupid as you'd expect - but then again, that's why we watch these
types of films; for mindless 'shut-your-brain-off' amusement.
You might forget the experience within a few hours, but you won't necessarily regret it.
"Anacondas: Hunt For The Blood Orchid" is dumb, forgettable fun - and a MEH flick.
Third tonight, "Anaconda 3: Offspring".
Borderline awful.
This discount "Deep Blue Sea" knock-off was released as a SyFy original TV-movie in 2008,
and loosely ties into the — and I can't believe I'm even saying this —established
"Anaconda" universe.
Directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy, the entire adventure-horror film is an exercise in exploitation.
The 91-minute creature feature is cheaper than the Wal-Mart bargain bin it now lives
in... and what little money SyFy did have, they used to secure Baywatch's David Hasselhoff.
But sadly, they could only afford a few days of his time, which is why all of his scenes
take place in generally the same area... while wearing generally the same clothes; as the
story repeatedly making excuses to exclude him from a vast majority of the action.
Missing from nearly every key scene, The Hoff is always 'running late', or 'with the other
team'.
Despite receiving top-billing, he's nowhere to be found.
But when he is on screen, he's easily the most entertaining aspect of the R-rated movie.
Ten years ago, Hasselhoff was better known for an infamous drunk hamburger video rather
than his acting ability... but compared to the theater-school drop outs around him?
He looks like a career veteran of Shakespearean theater.
At least lead heroine Crystal Allen is pretty cute in her tight tank top though, so "Offspring"
has that going for itself, which is nice.
Everyone else, including a angry performance from John Rhys-Davies, is relegated to hapless
walking-lunch for the titular monsters.
But this time around they've gained a new ability: piercing people with their barbed
tails!
Speaking of the snakes, they lack any subtly or realism, and showcase some of most laughably
bad computer effects of the 21st century - the giant 60-foot snakes look like goofy cartoon
lizards; and are far worse than their counterparts in the 1997 original.
The decline in quality of these crucial effects-shots over the intervening 11-years is aggressively
terrible - it's like if you watched the "Star Wars" films in episodic order... but magnitudes
worse.
"Anaconda 3: Offspring" is a lazy and hackneyed experience that provides just enough stupidly
fun moments to be tolerable.
I thought it was BAD.
Finally tonight, let's review "Anaconda 4: Trail Of Blood".
Geez, where do you even begin with a picture this inept?
The unneeded fourth installment from a franchise that just doesn't know when to quit premiered
on the SyFy Channel on February 28, 2009.
This time around, giant man-eating snakes — which now have the ability to regenerate
when injured — are terrorizing a bunch of hopeless meatbags wandering the Romanian woods.
The unimaginative 89-minute script is a direct-sequel to "The Offspring", with the occasionally-capable
Crystal Allen returning to lead duties.
With a tight black tank top and pistols strapped to both hips, she certainly has the 'look'
of a sexy action hero - but everyone else is a downright embarrassment.
The made-for-TV script is so pedestrian and silly though, I doubt if even Meryl Streep
could make it work.
John Rhys-Davies returns as well, as the dying mogul desperate to obtain a MacGuffin serum
to prolonged his life.
Featured only briefly in bookend segments, his entire performance amounts to little more
than posturing and expositional monologues.
Eight minutes into the R-rated film, after a predictable "scientist gets eaten by his
lab-experiment" cold-open, the film cuts to its primary establishing shot.
It's our first proper introduction to the setting where we'll be spending the remainder
of the run-time.
And yet, this 10-foot crane shot of a jeep pulling into a thinly crowded forest is perfectly
emblematic of "Trail Of Blood's" many issues.
For starters, giant anacondas don't live in the forest.
Secondly, Arial font in plain white?
Come on, guys - at least show some imagination with your titles.
Moreover, are we actually meant to believe this clearly flat area is the "Carpathian
Mountains"?
Third, is this really the most invocative shot director Don E. FauntLeRoy could come
up with?
A slow-moving crane shot beneath the treeline of a nondescript forest in Eastern Europe?
It provides no sense of scale, excitement, or — most importantly — geography!
The key tenant of an establishing shot, as its name would suggest, is to establish where
the action will take place.
And you know what other movies are filmed entirely on-location in Romania?
Steven Seagal's direct-to-video work.
Not a trait you want to share.
I've spent a fair amount of time complaining about a single shot early in the film, and
there's a reason for that; when your locations are uninteresting and the compositions un-engaging,
your audience is going to check out.
After only 500 seconds, I was mentally disconnected from this picture.
Worse still, the one alluring aspect of these types of low-budget creature-features; dumb
characters getting eaten alive by scary monsters - simply isn't satisfying in the slightest.
Frequent cutaways to disemboweled bodies and animal carcasses are sprinkled throughout
in attempt to gross-out the audience into paying attention again, but it never works.
Conversations are littered with random and unnecessary extreme close-ups.
While the computer-rendered 30' snakes look like a cartoon screensaver pasted on top of
the frame.
The music is nothing but bland, pre-composed royalty free tracks; and not even the stuff
you'd have to pay for.
I've literally spent more money scoring my YouTube videos than SyFy did on this crap.
And speaking of audio, what's with the sound effects?
The titular creatures literally growl like tigers and squeal like wounded pigs.
Least I remind this film's brain-dead writer: snakes don't have vocal cords!
This franchise began as a shameless guilty pleasure, and has only sunk deeper with each
regrettable installment.
And while previous entries benefited, however ironically, from their scenery-chewing villains
like Jon Voight or David Hasselhoff; "Trail Of Blood" has none of that, and is irredeemably
flat.
A boring, poorly-made slog, "Anaconda 4" is cinematic GARBAGE.
But hey, at least we can enjoy this hilarious freeze-frame of one of the dumb mercenaries,
mid-tackle.
The fifth and final entry in the "Anaconda" series is actually a cross-over with the "Lake
Placid" series, so we'll be saving that for the next episode...
when we review all of the entries in that similarly terrible franchise.
Until then, please click this information-icon if to watch some related videos.
My name is Jonathan Paula, thanks for watching and have a good Movie Night!