Touches You

Pretty Good

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I honestly think it was better than the first one. Johnny Messner is also a great actor and not to bad on the eyes.

The anaconda series is an interesting one for me. While it's definitely not a good series, it has its moments and is mostly harmless fun. However, in terms of comparing the first film and this one, for all its faults I'd actually say this one is the superior film.Yes, despite being set in Borneo where anacondas don't live, this film takes itself a lot more seriously than the first one. Dwight Little I'm a big fan of, and his style is definitely present throughout. The acting too for the most part is pretty good and it's beautifully shot. I don't think I've ever seen such a rich jungle environment. The snake effects too look so much better than the first one and, admittedly quite shockingly, this movie answers some logic questions from the first movie, the main one being how are these snakes growing so big/killing so many people so quicklyAll in all it's not a great movie, but it's still pretty enjoyable

This action adventure horror thriller film was released on August 27, 2004, seven years after its predecessor was released, and earning back more than three times its budget of $20 million. The PG-13-rated film shares the same premise as the previous film: A group of Americans travel into the jungles of Borneo, where they are hunted by snakes, and killed off one by one. The 97-minute long film stars the villainous Matthew Marsden as the leader of a team of researchers, with KaDee Strickland, Eugene Byrd, Salli Richardson, and Nicholas Gonzalez as his colleagues, as well as Morris Chestnut as the CEO of the company he's working for, Johnny Messner as a boat captain, and Karl Yune as a boat skipper. Overall, the acting is better than the film needs to be, especially Marsden as the villain, but the film is just as bad as you'd expect. Although, the various characters getting killed off does make you smile. The film frankly goes by really quickly, as the fast-paced narrative, and director Dwight Little's steadfast direction makes the movie feel an hour shorter than it is. Before I finish the review, I need to point out the decline in quality in the effects used to make the titular snake. The snakes look as bad as Godzilla in Roland Emmerich's 1998 version, although this film's anaconda looks much better than the next two sequels (Offspring, and Trail of Blood). Overall, the film is a good way to kill 90 minutes, or if it's a lazy Sunday afternoon where you want to watch a movie that's so bad it's good. Although, I generally enjoyed the film, and not even ironically. 5/10.

Heavens! This feels like it goes on for more than "Gone with the Wind" did! Lordy!The film (such as it is!) is almost interminable. Just basically a lot of running around the jungle with occasional scenes with one of the snakes. The rest is just goofy melodrama. And, some dude keeps yelling and freaking out constantly like Bill Paxton in "Aliens." Man, can't that guy have gotten eaten? At least Paxton was entertaining.Now, don't get me wrong, this is (amazingly!) better that the horrifically awful original "Anaconda," starring "Master Thespian" Jennifer Lopez and the always-terrible (at least since the 1970's!) Jon Voight. Oh, my, I am having grisly flashbacks just thinking of that!The visual effects are better here, but how could they be worse? The original used CGI in its infancy, and it wasn't a good idea. It came across as really fake in that movie. At least here, they have the good sense to stage the snake scenes at night and in the rain.The film score is the only redeeming thing in the movie. The cinematography is fine, but doesn't help make up for everything else!Do I need to say avoid? I do? Then, avoid!**** (4 Out of 10 Stars)