377 reviews
It's a stupid B-Movie with enough quality to fly by, and enough camp charm to get away with such cinematic crimes. The cast play it straight, apart from Voight. I'm pretty sure he was drunk during the shooting, coming out with an inexplicable accent and a look reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter. It's ridiculous fun, with hokey CGI and animatronics. The animatronics are great and make me miss the 90s. It's a big snake shaped tube and goes from slow robotic motions, to super fast CGI. Cube and Hyde manage some, at times, adorable dialogue. Voight's presence also unites the rest of the cast, and each character gets their own heroic captain moment. Fun filled and just plain bad. I loved it.
- SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain
- Jan 21, 2012
- Permalink
Let me tell you about a little film called Anaconda.
I watched this film a dozen times as a kid, I loved monster flicks. Anaconda was bad, it was utterly bad, yet I've seen it more times than I want to admit. Now we visit it again, years later, so we can laugh at how ridiculous this film is.
We open with Danny Trejo, for some reason they dubbed his lines. He doesn't speak English, but the voice the use is so much higher than what we all know to be the gravel voice of Trejo. Just something that I found funny.
The monster effects are laughably bad at times and worse at others. When the snake is animatronic, the obviousness of it all makes it seems like a bad ride at universal. Then we have the CGI effects, which make the snake seem like it doesn't even belong on the screen. The first attack on a human, the entire thing looks like one giant blur. The first time we see the snake in general isn't with some Jaws like reveal, it's simply the thing slithering around in the jungle before it attacks a puma. No big reveal, no slow reveal...just the damn snake out in the open.
In Ebert's review of the film, which is enthusiastically gave a thumbs up, he claims Jon Voight delivers a brave and slimy performance. That I can agree with, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a great performance. It's without a doubt, memorable, but in the campy way. He glares at almost everyone on the screen, his skin is slimy like a snake and immediately untrustworthy. No one else seems to think they are in a bad movie here. Voight seems to know this from the get go. Watch this film and then watch The Room and tell me the performances from them are not almost identical. Is he doing DeNiro? Is he doing Brando? Who the hell knows. It's one wacky performance, that much is a guarantee.
This was one of the early Jennifer Lopez films that probably helped launch her career. Why? I don't know, she doesn't offer anything interesting here. Ice Cube and Owen Wilson play against their usual type, I don't think we've seen either of them in a monster flick since this one,
Suffice to say, Anaconda is a bad film that boarders on being highly enjoyable. Sit back, laugh and enjoy the absurdity of Anaconda. If you take this film seriously...at all, even for one second, then you will utterly hate it.
I watched this film a dozen times as a kid, I loved monster flicks. Anaconda was bad, it was utterly bad, yet I've seen it more times than I want to admit. Now we visit it again, years later, so we can laugh at how ridiculous this film is.
We open with Danny Trejo, for some reason they dubbed his lines. He doesn't speak English, but the voice the use is so much higher than what we all know to be the gravel voice of Trejo. Just something that I found funny.
The monster effects are laughably bad at times and worse at others. When the snake is animatronic, the obviousness of it all makes it seems like a bad ride at universal. Then we have the CGI effects, which make the snake seem like it doesn't even belong on the screen. The first attack on a human, the entire thing looks like one giant blur. The first time we see the snake in general isn't with some Jaws like reveal, it's simply the thing slithering around in the jungle before it attacks a puma. No big reveal, no slow reveal...just the damn snake out in the open.
In Ebert's review of the film, which is enthusiastically gave a thumbs up, he claims Jon Voight delivers a brave and slimy performance. That I can agree with, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a great performance. It's without a doubt, memorable, but in the campy way. He glares at almost everyone on the screen, his skin is slimy like a snake and immediately untrustworthy. No one else seems to think they are in a bad movie here. Voight seems to know this from the get go. Watch this film and then watch The Room and tell me the performances from them are not almost identical. Is he doing DeNiro? Is he doing Brando? Who the hell knows. It's one wacky performance, that much is a guarantee.
This was one of the early Jennifer Lopez films that probably helped launch her career. Why? I don't know, she doesn't offer anything interesting here. Ice Cube and Owen Wilson play against their usual type, I don't think we've seen either of them in a monster flick since this one,
Suffice to say, Anaconda is a bad film that boarders on being highly enjoyable. Sit back, laugh and enjoy the absurdity of Anaconda. If you take this film seriously...at all, even for one second, then you will utterly hate it.
- Matt_Layden
- Nov 4, 2015
- Permalink
Before there was "Snakes on a Plane," there was "Anaconda," a Hollywood B-movie from the late 90's that is as notorious for its mixed bag of actors as it is for the gruesome snakes that populate its plot. In the film, a group of documentary film-makers traveling through the Amazon jungle picks up a mysterious man who inadvertently becomes their tour-guide on an unexpected detour. It seems the man is totally crazy and intends to capture one of the Amazon's most notorious and deadliest inhabitants: The Anaconda.
Despite some bad looking CGI-snakes (not bad in a good way) and a horribly mis-matched cast (J-Lo and Eric Stolz? Really?) "Anaconda" is simply a good, dumb time. Without a doubt, it's an utterly ridiculous film that can be insulting to your intelligence, but thankfully it knows not to overstay its welcome and the 90 minutes it takes up makes for a harmless and amusing ride. Ice Cube plays Ice Cube as he always does, while J-Lo turns in one of her more likable roles. You'll also catch Owen Wilson in one of his earliest roles, and John Voight is a pleasure to watch as he eats up the scenery. But face it, this movie is about snakes, and the titular character is the true star here. Surely, the actors on hand have done much worse, and as far as horror/b-movies about snakes, you could pick up much worse yourself. If you enjoy watching giant snakes (who inexplicably scream) stalk rappers, pop-stars and Angelina Jolie's dad, this is the flick for you. Those seeking genuine thrills, however, may find the film coming up a bit short.
Despite some bad looking CGI-snakes (not bad in a good way) and a horribly mis-matched cast (J-Lo and Eric Stolz? Really?) "Anaconda" is simply a good, dumb time. Without a doubt, it's an utterly ridiculous film that can be insulting to your intelligence, but thankfully it knows not to overstay its welcome and the 90 minutes it takes up makes for a harmless and amusing ride. Ice Cube plays Ice Cube as he always does, while J-Lo turns in one of her more likable roles. You'll also catch Owen Wilson in one of his earliest roles, and John Voight is a pleasure to watch as he eats up the scenery. But face it, this movie is about snakes, and the titular character is the true star here. Surely, the actors on hand have done much worse, and as far as horror/b-movies about snakes, you could pick up much worse yourself. If you enjoy watching giant snakes (who inexplicably scream) stalk rappers, pop-stars and Angelina Jolie's dad, this is the flick for you. Those seeking genuine thrills, however, may find the film coming up a bit short.
- Mr_Censored
- Jul 28, 2009
- Permalink
A guilty pleasure that's still fun & amusing, Anaconda was one of those famous B-movies that used to air a lot on TV when I was a kid and whenever I caught a glimpse of it while switching channels, I'd usually end up staying till the end. Creature feature was my go-to genre while growing up and this, along with Jurassic Park & Godzilla, were amongst my favorites.
Looking back today, it is difficult to ignore the multitudes of issues that plague this flick but back then, things like direction, screenplay, acting, plot structure, character arcs or themes etc didn't mean a thing to me. The only stuff that mattered was whether I'll be entertained or not. It was the only factor that decided the fate of any movie in my book. And in many ways, it still does.
Set in the Amazon jungles, the story of Anaconda follows a documentary film crew that comes across a stranded snake hunter and allow him to get on board. The atmosphere changes soon as the crew finds itself uncomfortable around the new guy who, after a series of tragedies, takes command of the boat & the crew and makes them help him in his quest to capture the world's largest & deadliest snake.
Directed by Luis Llosa, the first act is dull and it is only after the titular serpent surfaces that things get interesting. The script serves the bare serviceable minimum for a horror flick, dialogues are corny, characters are bland but its skillful camera-work & clever angles, in addition to its isolated setting, help in retaining an aura of suspense and is effective in bits n pieces.
The visual effects appear dated but it's still impressive in a few places. Everything about the anaconda is exaggerated to ridiculous proportions yet it adds to the fun & its campy tone. The film features a number of people who later went on to make a name for themselves in the Hollywood industry but it's Jon Voight who steals the show with his crazy, sinister & over-the-top rendition of the snake hunter.
On an overall scale, Anaconda exhibits all the ingredients that are responsible for bringing a film down yet it manages to stay afloat for the majority of its runtime. There are a few hiccups along the way but the ride is enjoyable for the most part and in the end, it is more satisfying & entertaining than other similar examples. An adventure that's not devoid of thrills & a horror that packs some good chills, Anaconda is well-deserving of its cult status. Worth a shot.
Looking back today, it is difficult to ignore the multitudes of issues that plague this flick but back then, things like direction, screenplay, acting, plot structure, character arcs or themes etc didn't mean a thing to me. The only stuff that mattered was whether I'll be entertained or not. It was the only factor that decided the fate of any movie in my book. And in many ways, it still does.
Set in the Amazon jungles, the story of Anaconda follows a documentary film crew that comes across a stranded snake hunter and allow him to get on board. The atmosphere changes soon as the crew finds itself uncomfortable around the new guy who, after a series of tragedies, takes command of the boat & the crew and makes them help him in his quest to capture the world's largest & deadliest snake.
Directed by Luis Llosa, the first act is dull and it is only after the titular serpent surfaces that things get interesting. The script serves the bare serviceable minimum for a horror flick, dialogues are corny, characters are bland but its skillful camera-work & clever angles, in addition to its isolated setting, help in retaining an aura of suspense and is effective in bits n pieces.
The visual effects appear dated but it's still impressive in a few places. Everything about the anaconda is exaggerated to ridiculous proportions yet it adds to the fun & its campy tone. The film features a number of people who later went on to make a name for themselves in the Hollywood industry but it's Jon Voight who steals the show with his crazy, sinister & over-the-top rendition of the snake hunter.
On an overall scale, Anaconda exhibits all the ingredients that are responsible for bringing a film down yet it manages to stay afloat for the majority of its runtime. There are a few hiccups along the way but the ride is enjoyable for the most part and in the end, it is more satisfying & entertaining than other similar examples. An adventure that's not devoid of thrills & a horror that packs some good chills, Anaconda is well-deserving of its cult status. Worth a shot.
- CinemaClown
- Sep 22, 2016
- Permalink
A documentary crew are travelling down the Amazon to hopefully film a mystical tribe. On the way they rescue a stranded man, unaware of the trouble that his being on board will bring. As they get deeper down river his ulterior motives surface, he's a snake trapper and has his heart set on capturing a giant Anaconda snake. A beast that can grow up to 40 feet long.
Ah, creaky creature features, how I love them. Days of old when budgets were minimal and the makers of such pictures just wanted to entertain and hopefully give the discerning viewers a jolt or two, and yes, with the odd giggle thrown in on purpose. Enter the modern day creature feature, where budgets have considerably improved along with the advent of special effects. Where does this leave Anaconda you ask? Is it a modern day homage to the "good old days," or is it a genuine attempt at making a horror film for the modern audience? How you answer that will probably determine how, or if, you enjoy the film.
The cast list suggests that the makers thought they were making a great movie, while some of the attempts at a serious performance also lend weight to that theory. John Voight on the other hand clearly knew what was needed and gives a sneering, leering ham sandwich performance befitting those creakers from days of yore. If only the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Eric Stoltz, Owen Wilson and Kari Wuhrer had followed suit, we may have been sitting here with a creature feature to rank alongside the marvellous Tremors, or at the least an equal to the funny Arachnophobia.
It's not a desperately bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It's fun playing the "guess which name actor is going to be snake food next" and "who will survive come the end" While iffy effects aren't really an issue, hey this is a film with gigantic animatronic snakes in it! And for sure some scenes are pure horror hokum delight, watch out for a John Voight wink scene, it's Z movie legend now. But it's neither homage or good horror fodder. Enjoyable enough as an appetiser to far better genre pieces, but ultimately it's very forgettable. 5/10
Ah, creaky creature features, how I love them. Days of old when budgets were minimal and the makers of such pictures just wanted to entertain and hopefully give the discerning viewers a jolt or two, and yes, with the odd giggle thrown in on purpose. Enter the modern day creature feature, where budgets have considerably improved along with the advent of special effects. Where does this leave Anaconda you ask? Is it a modern day homage to the "good old days," or is it a genuine attempt at making a horror film for the modern audience? How you answer that will probably determine how, or if, you enjoy the film.
The cast list suggests that the makers thought they were making a great movie, while some of the attempts at a serious performance also lend weight to that theory. John Voight on the other hand clearly knew what was needed and gives a sneering, leering ham sandwich performance befitting those creakers from days of yore. If only the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Eric Stoltz, Owen Wilson and Kari Wuhrer had followed suit, we may have been sitting here with a creature feature to rank alongside the marvellous Tremors, or at the least an equal to the funny Arachnophobia.
It's not a desperately bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It's fun playing the "guess which name actor is going to be snake food next" and "who will survive come the end" While iffy effects aren't really an issue, hey this is a film with gigantic animatronic snakes in it! And for sure some scenes are pure horror hokum delight, watch out for a John Voight wink scene, it's Z movie legend now. But it's neither homage or good horror fodder. Enjoyable enough as an appetiser to far better genre pieces, but ultimately it's very forgettable. 5/10
- hitchcockthelegend
- Oct 1, 2009
- Permalink
Except for Jon Voight's character, I didn't find any of the actors/characters in this film likable, just annoying. Voight was hardly a role model, either. I wound up rooting for the anaconda. Ice Cube, Jonathan Hyde, Jennifer Lopez...all playing people with chips on their shoulders. Sorry, but rappers with attitudes or snobby Englishmen aren't entertaining to me.
In here, too, is the all-too-familiar cheap shot against Christians in which they show the worst, most despicable person in the story and then zoom in several times to show you the cross that sleazebag is wearing. They always want to make that association and they make it obvious every time.
What makes the movie tolerable at all is the great Brazlian swamp scenery and good special effects with the giant snake. Yeah, sometimes the snake scenes look a bit computer-generated but more than not, they are just plain scary. A few of them are downright jaw-dropping as when it flies through the air, swallows human beings or swims while on fire. This is nice on DVD with rich visuals and very good surround sound.
If only the people in the movie were half as good as the scenery.
In here, too, is the all-too-familiar cheap shot against Christians in which they show the worst, most despicable person in the story and then zoom in several times to show you the cross that sleazebag is wearing. They always want to make that association and they make it obvious every time.
What makes the movie tolerable at all is the great Brazlian swamp scenery and good special effects with the giant snake. Yeah, sometimes the snake scenes look a bit computer-generated but more than not, they are just plain scary. A few of them are downright jaw-dropping as when it flies through the air, swallows human beings or swims while on fire. This is nice on DVD with rich visuals and very good surround sound.
If only the people in the movie were half as good as the scenery.
- ccthemovieman-1
- Jun 19, 2006
- Permalink
Erik Stolz must have owed someone a favor. But he was lucky; he was unconscious for most of the movie. I wish I was! The scene that made me cringe the most was the "snake fishing" scene where Jon Voigt has the "Jaws" moment. I know it was put in on purpose but it just comes off stupid.
And it doesn't matter too much that there was a lot of snake fact errors (like the speedy snake chase - you can walk faster than any anaconda can slither). Jaws had it share if inaccuracies but it was still a gripping movie.
This movie just fell into the big monster is chased by the hunter. Throw in a little J-Lo to spice it up.
Note to IMDb - the sequel took place in Borneo not the first one. And the cat in the opening scene was a black jaguar, not a tiger.
And it doesn't matter too much that there was a lot of snake fact errors (like the speedy snake chase - you can walk faster than any anaconda can slither). Jaws had it share if inaccuracies but it was still a gripping movie.
This movie just fell into the big monster is chased by the hunter. Throw in a little J-Lo to spice it up.
Note to IMDb - the sequel took place in Borneo not the first one. And the cat in the opening scene was a black jaguar, not a tiger.
- snakeguy76
- Oct 25, 2005
- Permalink
Anaconda is often looked at as cinematic trash. And it is but it's also wonderfully entertaining. Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Eric Stoltz, Kari Wuhrer, Owen Wilson and Jon Voight star. Jennifer Lopez is really fierce as the lead and Jon Voight is so bonkers and over the top it's just comically absurd and wonderful. The effects leave something to be desired. The digital doesn't hold up but the practical is still pretty cool. The movie is creepy and funny and it's opening kill features a somewhat young I think Danny Trejo. Sometimes you just need to trash it up.
- rivertam26
- Feb 5, 2020
- Permalink
- michaelRokeefe
- Sep 17, 2004
- Permalink
This stirring picture concerns about a documentary film crew from National Geographic constituted by a motley group: Jennifer Lopez Ice Cube, Eric Stolz, Jonathan Hyde, Owen Wilson, Kari Wuhrer traveling the Amazon river looking for a legendary Indian tribe and guided by Jon Voigh, playing a nutty, snake-obsessed hunter.But a great creature terrorizing the river, it turns to be a very large Anaconda with more 50-foot long. Meanwhile the bunch relationship each other till appearance the enormous snake. A poisonous and giant snake,attack at random and slither down the river, forest, jungle and slither around the boat ready to attack anyone on its path.
The picture provides stirring and exciting amusement with hair-raising chills and creepy scares. The Anacandas, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly and almost totally convincing.The snakes are made by animatronics and computer generator, as usual. Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming snake food. Rather sympathetic and exaggerated acting by Jon Voight as crazy and nasty snakes hunter. The picture displays atmospheric music score by Randy Edelman and colorful cinematography by Bill Butler, cameraman of ¨Jaws¨film. The movie is professionally directed by Luis Llosa, an expert action movies director (The sniper, The specialist) and habitual shooting on river Amazonas(Fire on the Amazon, eight hundred leagues down the Amazon). It's followed by inferior sequel : The hunt for the blood orchid(2004) by Dwight H. Little and created an authentic exploitation snakes sub-genre, such as : ¨Python I and II, Boa, Rattler, King Cobra , among others.
The picture provides stirring and exciting amusement with hair-raising chills and creepy scares. The Anacandas, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly and almost totally convincing.The snakes are made by animatronics and computer generator, as usual. Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming snake food. Rather sympathetic and exaggerated acting by Jon Voight as crazy and nasty snakes hunter. The picture displays atmospheric music score by Randy Edelman and colorful cinematography by Bill Butler, cameraman of ¨Jaws¨film. The movie is professionally directed by Luis Llosa, an expert action movies director (The sniper, The specialist) and habitual shooting on river Amazonas(Fire on the Amazon, eight hundred leagues down the Amazon). It's followed by inferior sequel : The hunt for the blood orchid(2004) by Dwight H. Little and created an authentic exploitation snakes sub-genre, such as : ¨Python I and II, Boa, Rattler, King Cobra , among others.
Anaconda (1997) is currently available on Prime and tells the story of a National Geographic film team that hopes to film an amazing film and get their big break; unfortunately for them, their guide has other plans when he sees the largest anaconda he's ever seen that's worth millions. The film crew will be used as bait to catch this treasure...or will the anaconda catch all of them? This movie is directed by Luis Llosa (The Specialist) and stars Jennifer Lopez (The Cell), Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy), Ice Cube (Friday), Jonathan Hyde (Titanic) and Eric Stoltz (Pulp Fiction). Anaconda is one of those movies every time you watch it you wonder if the cast knew how bad it was while it was getting made. The random accents and strange dialogue by Voight and Hyde are painful. Ice Cube is funny in this and almost makes it enjoyable. Lopez is fine and delivers her part well, for what it's worth. The snake and CGI in this is dreadful. Absolutely miserable. It's painful to watch every time it appears. This is a horror film you only need to see once, and maybe not even that many time. I'd score this a 3/10 and recommend skipping it.
- kevin_robbins
- Aug 24, 2021
- Permalink
If you want to watch a movie on a blazing, hot evening and have no options (and missed this one back in the day), then this is going to entertain you. Action? Yes. Fun? Yes. Acting? Oh hell yes! Just pay attention to Jon Voight and his over-the-top performance and prepare to be amazed. On top of that, one thing to consider: the writing for J-Lo's character, her lines, are totally out there making her sound useless and fragile, helpless side-hero for at least 45 minutes. Luckily this will change slightly towards the 2nd half, but...really,
Mr Writer? Good thing that the anaconda steals the show. Finally, the overall rating here is unfair. This should be around 6.5 and is a much better monster-munch film than many others in the 00's and 10's...8/10, pure fun.
This underrated monster movie came out around the same time as THE RELIC and both films got poor reviews. I happened to see this at the cinema back in '97 and I remember being distinctly underwhelmed by the film. After catching it on television again last night, my opinion has radically changed. While it may be a cheesy film with bad acting and poor special effects, the makers of this film obviously have an affection for B movies and, as one reviewer on the IMDb noted, there is definitely an old-fashioned feel to it, it's a bit like a '50s giant monster movie updated to the present day. On retrospect, I enjoyed this far more than the disappointing and hugely generic film that was THE RELIC, and after watching many of the recent so-called "horror" films on release, I've come to appreciate this for what it is : a fun, shallow and fast-paced little film that delivers the goods on the gore front.
While it's not a particularly bloody film, many of the deaths by snake are gooey and gruesome in the extreme. We watch the victims as they get slowly crushed and their bones break out, and then watch as their blubbery bodies are digested by the snake. In the film's big moment, Jon Voight is eaten, only to be regurgitated as a half-eaten mess moments later. Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, his corpse winks! The plot is a typically contrived and generic one, but as I mentioned it's fast paced so you don't have time to dwell on the holes. The acting is pretty bad, but again that's typical for a film of this variety - what's not typical is that most of the actors here are famous, or have become famous since.
Jennifer Lopez takes the lead and frankly I can't see what all the fuss is about, to me she's unattractive and a bad actress to boot. Joining her are Eric Stoltz in a nothing role, and he spends most of the film in a coma after eating a deadly wasp (strangely, though, he doesn't die!). Ice Cube is the likable, gruff and unlikely hero, a feat he pulled off again in '99s THREE KINGS. Jonathan Hyde plays an Englishman in a role that borders on the offensively stereotypical - if we British aren't depicted as bad guys, then must we all have stupid accents and be figures of ridicule with our silly "stiff upper lip" type characters? Bad acting awards go to Jon Voight for his supremely hammy portrayal of the film's villain, a lip-curling, eye-winking performance which I found to be hilarious - he's great, having a laugh, and miles away from the boringly serious characters he played in films like Deliverance. A pre-stardom Owen Wilson is pretty bland, and Kari Wuhrer is all glamour and no intelligence. Eagle-eyed viewers may spot FROM DUSK TILL DAWN's vampire bartender Danny Trejo as a snake victim whose suicide kicks the film off.
Now, for the special effects, which are a mixture of CGI and animatronics. The animatronics are great, and very lifelike. The CGI is not so, but at least it looks pretty as we watch the snake swirl through the air and stuff. I've seen a lot worse in more recent films, and at least you can see the effort that's gone into this creation to try and make it look as spectacular as possible. Speaking of spectacular, there is the requisite explosive finale which manages to be quite exciting as things go. ANACONDA is, to me, a welcome monster movie from a time when most horror films were slashers squarely aimed at a teenage audience. Thankfully, this film has no teenagers and no masked killers. That, the fun monster and the change of location (an authentic-looking Amazon jungle) make this one to watch again and again for me.
While it's not a particularly bloody film, many of the deaths by snake are gooey and gruesome in the extreme. We watch the victims as they get slowly crushed and their bones break out, and then watch as their blubbery bodies are digested by the snake. In the film's big moment, Jon Voight is eaten, only to be regurgitated as a half-eaten mess moments later. Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, his corpse winks! The plot is a typically contrived and generic one, but as I mentioned it's fast paced so you don't have time to dwell on the holes. The acting is pretty bad, but again that's typical for a film of this variety - what's not typical is that most of the actors here are famous, or have become famous since.
Jennifer Lopez takes the lead and frankly I can't see what all the fuss is about, to me she's unattractive and a bad actress to boot. Joining her are Eric Stoltz in a nothing role, and he spends most of the film in a coma after eating a deadly wasp (strangely, though, he doesn't die!). Ice Cube is the likable, gruff and unlikely hero, a feat he pulled off again in '99s THREE KINGS. Jonathan Hyde plays an Englishman in a role that borders on the offensively stereotypical - if we British aren't depicted as bad guys, then must we all have stupid accents and be figures of ridicule with our silly "stiff upper lip" type characters? Bad acting awards go to Jon Voight for his supremely hammy portrayal of the film's villain, a lip-curling, eye-winking performance which I found to be hilarious - he's great, having a laugh, and miles away from the boringly serious characters he played in films like Deliverance. A pre-stardom Owen Wilson is pretty bland, and Kari Wuhrer is all glamour and no intelligence. Eagle-eyed viewers may spot FROM DUSK TILL DAWN's vampire bartender Danny Trejo as a snake victim whose suicide kicks the film off.
Now, for the special effects, which are a mixture of CGI and animatronics. The animatronics are great, and very lifelike. The CGI is not so, but at least it looks pretty as we watch the snake swirl through the air and stuff. I've seen a lot worse in more recent films, and at least you can see the effort that's gone into this creation to try and make it look as spectacular as possible. Speaking of spectacular, there is the requisite explosive finale which manages to be quite exciting as things go. ANACONDA is, to me, a welcome monster movie from a time when most horror films were slashers squarely aimed at a teenage audience. Thankfully, this film has no teenagers and no masked killers. That, the fun monster and the change of location (an authentic-looking Amazon jungle) make this one to watch again and again for me.
- Leofwine_draca
- Mar 16, 2015
- Permalink
I saw this movie back in 1997 when if first came out. Just rewatched it in 2022. It's a TERRIBLE movie, but you've got to watch it. It's laughable, not scary and I'd let my 7 year old watch because it is NOT scary.
This is not as bad as some people say it is. Generally, it's pretty formulaic, but there are a few alterations on the monster movie format.
A crew making a documentary set sail down a tropical river, on their way losing their fuel and, you guessed it, bumping into a big snake. There are all the usual characters here: beautiful girl, villain, posh English bloke (there's always one!), working-class hero, etc. They gradually get picked off one-by-one - although guessing the next "victim" is so easy, it takes the fun out of it all.
There are a few oddities in the consistency of the plot. Most of the killing happen in the second half of the film with the first half devoted to boring sub-plots. Curiously, the customary "introduction shock" is not a snake death, but a suicide. We never really find out why this has happened - after all, there is still a lot of Jennifer Lopez to be shown - and this, I think, is one of the main problems with the film. Story lines are attempted but never completed and so the audience will never gain true satisfaction from the film.
Another interesting factor is Terri's boyfriend and his contribution to the story line. During a dive, he gets bitten and the crew manage to recover him. They save his life but he is still unconscious and remains so throughout most of the movie.
However, the weakest character of all is the snake. Sure, it's pretty ugly, but it will never be truly terrifying as the director doesn't play on our sense of fear. We may be surprised when the snake attacks but never truly shocked.
As I said before, this isn't too bad a movie (I've seen worse) - there are some moments of tension, the actors do their jobs and the special effects are far from laughable. You might want to watch this if it's shown of TV, but I wouldn't pay money to see it.
A crew making a documentary set sail down a tropical river, on their way losing their fuel and, you guessed it, bumping into a big snake. There are all the usual characters here: beautiful girl, villain, posh English bloke (there's always one!), working-class hero, etc. They gradually get picked off one-by-one - although guessing the next "victim" is so easy, it takes the fun out of it all.
There are a few oddities in the consistency of the plot. Most of the killing happen in the second half of the film with the first half devoted to boring sub-plots. Curiously, the customary "introduction shock" is not a snake death, but a suicide. We never really find out why this has happened - after all, there is still a lot of Jennifer Lopez to be shown - and this, I think, is one of the main problems with the film. Story lines are attempted but never completed and so the audience will never gain true satisfaction from the film.
Another interesting factor is Terri's boyfriend and his contribution to the story line. During a dive, he gets bitten and the crew manage to recover him. They save his life but he is still unconscious and remains so throughout most of the movie.
However, the weakest character of all is the snake. Sure, it's pretty ugly, but it will never be truly terrifying as the director doesn't play on our sense of fear. We may be surprised when the snake attacks but never truly shocked.
As I said before, this isn't too bad a movie (I've seen worse) - there are some moments of tension, the actors do their jobs and the special effects are far from laughable. You might want to watch this if it's shown of TV, but I wouldn't pay money to see it.
- likeitorloatheit
- Apr 11, 2001
- Permalink
- mark.waltz
- Jul 12, 2021
- Permalink
It's pretty damn difficult to impress even the most enthusiast and undemanding horror audiences with a 40 ft. long animatronic snake that apart from looking silly also screams at its victims. And yet, strangely enough, the CGI effects & visuals are actually the most pleasing aspects to endure whilst watching "Anaconda". The hopelessly muddled script and the awful performances (coming from a prominent ensemble cast, I may add) form the real disaster here. This could have been a pretty cool big animal creature-feature IF ONLY the creators tried a to make it look less like big-budgeted studio blockbuster and more like an unpretentious and cheesy B-movie! Jon Voight surely seemed to think he was involved in such a production, as his performance is permanently over-the-top and almost deliberately bad. Voight blinks ridiculously all the time and talks in an unidentifiable accent, while the rest of the cast attempts to speak their lines straight-faced and plausible. It's almost pitiful to behold. A seven-headed film crew sails down the mighty Amazon river, hoping to shoot a breakthrough documentary about a nearly extinct tribe of natives. Instead of primitive savages, they encounter a stranded adventurer who claims to know all the dangers of the Amazon jungle and offers to be their guide. Patiently and strategically, he (Paul Sarone) directs the crew towards the territory of the horrific man-eating anaconda. After (far too) many lame and predictable false alarm sequences, the big computer-engineered snake finally begins to reduce the number of passengers on the boat. The grotesque action sequences are okay, I guess, but the interactions between the stereotypical characters are totally unbelievable. Eric Stolz (as the expedition's leader) lies unconscious most of the time, Ice Cube stares at the animals in the jungle as they were his gangster enemies from the ghetto, Owen Wilson looks like he wants to ride the anaconda as it was a rodeo-bull and worst of all Jonathan Hyde plays the obnoxious British chap who even carries on golfing after several people have died. As strange as it sounds, Jennifer Lopez honestly plays the most convincing character and gives away the best performance. The plot meanders needlessly and contains several situations that are stupid and inexplicable, like unnatural barricades in the middle of the godforsaken jungle and dynamite-induced snake showers. Luis Llosa's direction is uninspired but at least Bill Butler's camera captures some enchanting images of the South American jungles. Despite having appeared in over 40 movies already, Danny Trejo's role is just a miserable cameo.
- Matrixgirl04K10
- Nov 3, 2001
- Permalink
I read a lot of the review on this 23 year old flick. It's not as bad as people are saying. It is a well made finely acted unbelievable adventure flick. Anyone that expected this to be an Oscar award winning movie are delusional. I mean really, it's Jay Lo, Ice Cube
, Voight, and Owen. It's mindless entertainment and nothing else. Enjoy.
There are two ways to see this film and rate it.
1: As a movie that turned out to be much worse than it intended to be. In which case it's obvious that an actor like Jon Voight would overact to try and make it look like it was intended to be "bad". The special f/x, intended or not, are done with computer animation and are, in that category, the worst i've seen yet. A snake that moves like a cartoon. If it was the movieproducers' intention to make a "bad" movie, they would have done better to use the old fashioned special f/x, with a rubber prop.
2:As a movie that was, indeed, intended to be a b-movie. However, since the director Luis Llosa previously only made "serious" action movies like "the Specialist" and "Sniper", i have to seriously doubt it was his intension to make a "tongue-in-cheek" movie. If it WAS his intention, he nearly succeeded in making a fun "bad" movie.
Personally, there were only two things in this movie i enjoyed: The voluptuous Jennifer Lopez, and the magnificently "bad" performance of Jon Voight, who with just the facial expressions brings a smile to your face.
1: As a movie that turned out to be much worse than it intended to be. In which case it's obvious that an actor like Jon Voight would overact to try and make it look like it was intended to be "bad". The special f/x, intended or not, are done with computer animation and are, in that category, the worst i've seen yet. A snake that moves like a cartoon. If it was the movieproducers' intention to make a "bad" movie, they would have done better to use the old fashioned special f/x, with a rubber prop.
2:As a movie that was, indeed, intended to be a b-movie. However, since the director Luis Llosa previously only made "serious" action movies like "the Specialist" and "Sniper", i have to seriously doubt it was his intension to make a "tongue-in-cheek" movie. If it WAS his intention, he nearly succeeded in making a fun "bad" movie.
Personally, there were only two things in this movie i enjoyed: The voluptuous Jennifer Lopez, and the magnificently "bad" performance of Jon Voight, who with just the facial expressions brings a smile to your face.
Anaconda is by no means a good movie. But you have to watch it. On many levels, it is fun to see. Depending on your mood you will find John Voight amazing or the worst actor in history. It is the former to me. The rest of the cast is pretty bad but they perfectly fit in a pretty predictable script.
- pjvalentin-19429
- Jan 14, 2022
- Permalink
And let's be clear: the movie isn't serious! Take the performance of Jon Voight, who some have compared to different characters portrayed by different other actors, one of them being a Robert De Niro role. One thing everyone agrees on though is that he plays it over the top - as over the top as is possible and maybe even further out there. It fits the whole sentiment of the movie.
Then you have some actors that were not as known back then but at least ring a bell now. Now you could blame this movie to have spawned and birthed a lot of bad imitators (even some sequels that are seen as gross and just plain bad by some). But this put a lot of effort in what it did. Not that it all translates well on screen. The CGI effects look weak to say the least, but not worse than the ones used in part 3&4 which were made over a decade later! The model effects (it is not just CGI as some reviewers would like you to believe here) are quite decent, but as the making of reveals, could have worked better if different animatronics would have been used.
Having said all that, the movie deserves to be just seen as entertainment. Try to enjoy it for what it is. Call it guilty pleasure if it helps - just roll, ride - heck swim with it! It's a freaking Anaconda eating people for crying out loud - what do you expect? It's as good as it gets
Then you have some actors that were not as known back then but at least ring a bell now. Now you could blame this movie to have spawned and birthed a lot of bad imitators (even some sequels that are seen as gross and just plain bad by some). But this put a lot of effort in what it did. Not that it all translates well on screen. The CGI effects look weak to say the least, but not worse than the ones used in part 3&4 which were made over a decade later! The model effects (it is not just CGI as some reviewers would like you to believe here) are quite decent, but as the making of reveals, could have worked better if different animatronics would have been used.
Having said all that, the movie deserves to be just seen as entertainment. Try to enjoy it for what it is. Call it guilty pleasure if it helps - just roll, ride - heck swim with it! It's a freaking Anaconda eating people for crying out loud - what do you expect? It's as good as it gets
I watched this as a teenager in the cinema.
Ok so it's a pretty corny script at times but just look at the ensemble of great actors here.
I feel a 4.8 is harsh.
I would give this a 6 but I'm saying 7 just to give it a little boost lol.
If you want to watch some entertaining, slightly OTT horror film, then you'll enjoy this. Just don't expect it to be anything more than it is.
FUN.
Ok so it's a pretty corny script at times but just look at the ensemble of great actors here.
I feel a 4.8 is harsh.
I would give this a 6 but I'm saying 7 just to give it a little boost lol.
If you want to watch some entertaining, slightly OTT horror film, then you'll enjoy this. Just don't expect it to be anything more than it is.
FUN.
- barmybramgaming
- Nov 5, 2021
- Permalink
This wants to be Jaws (1975) in style and tension but falls woefully short due to the dumb script, inept direction and inconsistent blending of poor CGI and physical effects of the anaconda that never quite convinces. The opening scene with Danny Trejo is promising but as he gets dispensed with early on it's all downhill from there.
Director Luis Llosa is no Spielberg however Anaconda does have it's moments of gore and thrills which moves at a fast pace but Llosa fails to build adequate tension and characterisation for this to work as well as it could have. Jon Voight seems to be relishing his role as the unscrupulous hunter bent on capturing the largest snake in the Amazon with his over the top performance but because of the lack of characterisation we don't really care who gets bitten, crushed or eaten alive despite an appealing cast of now well known actors Owen Wilson, Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and Eric Stoltz.
That said it's a fun, action packed monster B-movie that doesn't take itself too seriously with hokey effects and stereotypical characters being part of it's charm. A similar creature feature Lake Placid (1999) is done a lot better in my opinion but stays in the realm of the B movie.
Director Luis Llosa is no Spielberg however Anaconda does have it's moments of gore and thrills which moves at a fast pace but Llosa fails to build adequate tension and characterisation for this to work as well as it could have. Jon Voight seems to be relishing his role as the unscrupulous hunter bent on capturing the largest snake in the Amazon with his over the top performance but because of the lack of characterisation we don't really care who gets bitten, crushed or eaten alive despite an appealing cast of now well known actors Owen Wilson, Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and Eric Stoltz.
That said it's a fun, action packed monster B-movie that doesn't take itself too seriously with hokey effects and stereotypical characters being part of it's charm. A similar creature feature Lake Placid (1999) is done a lot better in my opinion but stays in the realm of the B movie.