Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The hunters will become the hunted.
In New York, the ambitious Dr. Jack Byron and his associate Gordon Mitchell present the research of his assistant Sam Rogers to the CEO and board of directors of a corporation to sponsor a scientific expedition to Borneo. The objective is to find a flower, Blood Orchid, that flourishes for a couple of weeks every seven years and could be a fountain of youth, prolonging the expectation of life of human beings. They are succeeded and once in Borneo, they realize that it is the raining season and there is no boat available to navigate on the river. They pay US$ 50,000.00 to convince Captain Bill Johnson and his partner Tran to sail to the location. After an accident in a waterfall, the survivors realize that a pack of anacondas have gathered for mating and their nest is nearby the plantation of Blood Orchid, which made them bigger and bigger.
| Nicholas Hope | Christina Van Dyke |
| Peter Curtin | Lawyer |
| Eugene Byrd | Cole Burris |
| Morris Chestnut | Gordon Mitchell |
| Nicholas Gonzalez | Dr. Ben Douglas |
| Matthew Marsden | Dr. Jack Byron |
| Johnny Messner | Bill Johnson |
| Salli Richardson | Gail Stern |
| KaDee Strickland | Sam Rogers |
| Karl Yune | Tran |
| Andy Anderson | John Livingston |
| Denis Arndt | CEO |
| Khoa Do | Lead Lopak Hunter |
| Aireti | Lopak Hunter |
| Andre Tandjung | Bartender |
| Dwight H. Little |
4.10 out of 10 (5750 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Wait! This is a sequel to Anaconda?
posted on 07 Jun 2009Can you believe that they actually made a sequel to the atrocity Anaconda. To be honest I had no idea that this was in fact a sequel to the previous film featuring an all-star cast of ice cube, j-lo, and jon voight that tanked. This film however took a different step in its creation, instead of investing all of its money in a cast, it found a bunch of nobody actors, a spent all of its money on the CGI work. Although this film was only somewhat better then the original, it seemed to stand well on its own. The producers made a good choice in focusing the money on the special effects, because the actors in this film did just as well as the all-star cast of the first. The only problem is that the script still sucked explaining that a group of scientists along with two local Borneo boatsman go on an expedition to find a rare orchid. Now this orchid not only rare, in fact contains chemicals that could supposedly expand a persons life. The adventure sets out into the jungle to find this flower but troubles arise, and guess what so do a large number of extremely large anacondas trying to find a mate. As if you didn't already no, now the group must save their lives and still attempt to retrieve that plant without being eaten by large snakes. The film holds up, it'll keep your attention. But don't be surprised if you still finish the film feeling foolish for spending money to see it.
It hurts please stop.
posted on 03 Jun 2009Before i watched this i knew it was going to be bad but i was no way ready for how bad. There was no way i was going to pay to watch this so on a quiet shift at work i put it on(i work in a video shop) to see how such a bad film as anaconda should warrant a sequel. Looking back now i would rather belly flop on to a floor of broken glass than to watch this. From a really fake CGI waterfall(there's always a waterfall scene in jungle films) to the first look at the giant anacondas, this film got from bad to worst. There only fun in watching this is to guess what order the people get taken out in. Avoid this at all cost or watch it to witness a utter waste of time. What shocks me is that someone actually put money into this to make.
As bad as it is, it's still better than most Hollywood fodder
posted on 12 May 2009This was the closest thing I've seen to a 2004 "b movie".It mad me laugh. I watched it twice...and I couldn't get over how stupid it wasThat being said, Hollywood is full of crap so this shouldn't be a surprise. The difference however is movies like Alexandar, Fast and the Furious and others are just as terrible, but try to go that extra mile and thus leave the "b movie" status.This is one of those films that's "so bad...it's good" and that's something I can't say about the rest of HollywoodSomeone once said to me "I'd rather make below average music than average. I either want to make AMAZING music, or bad music. If I'm average, ten years from now nobody will take notice. I'll just be "another CD". If I'm bad however, someone will take notice because I'm no longer "avaerage". I'm doing something a lot worse than others, and that will appeal to someone"I feel like I can put this theory to work with this film. It's better than the majority of Hollywood films for one reason...it's just that badI would honestly buy this DVD over "day after tomorrow" or something because after a few beers with some friends this will keep us laughing most of the night...
A really good movie
posted on 06 May 2009It's been a long time since I've seen a movie with an intelligent set of characters. Yes, the movie is set up on the time-worn premise of greed getting you into life threatening danger, but the cast makes it work. It's nice to see a group of people that keep their wits about them, and not just become mindless screaming bags of flesh when confronted with danger. You have your mix of characters that you want to see get eaten, and those you want to live. I had my own doubts about this movie because I didn't like the first. Now, I'm glad I let my friends talk me into seeing it. This is not Lawrence of Arabia classic material, but it is quite good for what it is. A monster movie.
UNDERRATED
posted on 06 May 2009This movie is very good. I don't know why everyone hates this movie. It's awesome. It is not gory, but there is some blood. Not a whole lot. I found the ending a little unrealistic though. The anacondas could look a lot better in the special effects, but some parts look good. The snakes are HUGE, and if you don't like snakes, don't go and see this movie. And if you do, just remember it's not real, it's just a movie.This movie has some very slow parts at the beginning of the movie, but it picks up after the waterfall. It is not scary at all, but there is some jump parts. The whole theater jumped at some parts. But some parts, you can tell a jump part is coming.If you don't like animal's getting in danger, don't see it, because the monkey gets in some peril.Overall, this movie is very good. I give it an 8/10.
A cast of relatively unknown people make this film so miserable
posted on 30 Apr 2009"Anacondas: The Hunt for the Black Orchid" is the sequel to the 1997 film. While the first film, seemed to have great special effects and the acting was descent from such stars as Jennifer Lopez, Jon Voight and Owen Wilson, this film has a relatively unknown cast that makes it so miserable. I didn't know any of the stars from this film and the plot abou going to find this flower in the middle of Borneo, South America was too cheesy. The snakes were very fake, too. They didn't look real. "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Black Orchid" just doesn't add up to the original and I wish it would have.Joe Calahan 2 stars C-
Best Bad Movie of the Summer
posted on 14 Apr 2009`Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid' is the best bad movie of the summer. It really has no peer in this regard; the term `popcorn movie' is tossed about currently, as if other movies might not require same, for any film that has less than Oscar aspirations. Well, here is one shouldn't pass critical muster, but does. Following up on the mayhem/horror/adventure themes of the original 1997 `Anaconda', this film is disappointingly good, or viewed in other light, happily not bad. Those seeking MST3000 kicks (bad acting, abysmal effects and/or lackluster production values) need seek their fix elsewhere. This is a surprisingly well shot picture and the acting is at least equal to the theme. The overall look of the film rates it two stars without any regard to the former points. In the way of plot, we find that an orchid has been discovered in Borneo possessing chemical properties that might have life-extending effects; and how indeed might a Ponce de Leon-inspired Fountain of Youth drug not be of interest to the narcissistic in all of us? So a corporate decision is made to assemble a team of explorers to be sent to Borneo to gather enough samples of said inflorescence to synthesize enough of the active ingredient to make investors woozy with excitement. One of the criticisms of this film is that it is cast with unknowns. And of course this always invites the speculation: at what point are new recruits to acting given their chance? So let's review the relative unknown quotient of our players. Johnny Messner (as Bill Johnson, captain of the boat) has been in eight movies and made a number of TV appearances. KaDee Strickland (as scientist Sam Rogers) has appeared in eight films in small parts. Matthew Marsden (as Dr. Byron) has had seven movie roles. Nicholas Gonzalez (as Dr. Douglas) – three movies and several TV appearances to his credit; Eugene Byrd (as Cole) has appeared in 10 movies and had a substantial number of TV appearances. Where are the `unknowns' thus far? As KaDee Strickland mentions in an interview (http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id08201) some attempt was made to make this a classier effort than is found in most films of the genre. And in that regard we are not disappointed; we care to see where the story is going and what might happen to the characters we've met. Or as KaDee says, `I think there are films of this genre that are much worse than this and very corny. Filmed entirely in Fiji (oh, there are those Oklahoma City moments), this effort certainly warrants more than the 24% it is accorded on the Tomatometer. If for no other reason, the scares, look and location shooting suggest this will be a big winner at the box office and even more certainly in the rental market in the near future. Rating: Three Stars.
excellent scenery still doesn't make it worth the time
posted on 02 Apr 2009Forgettable, unnecessary, thoroughly lifeless sequel has some great scenery to please the eye, but beyond that there's no real reason to bother watching it. This time around a group of scientists set sail on a trouble-ridden expedition to try and find the blood orchid, a rare flower which grants long life and could make them all rich. Not a bad idea, but along the way they encounter mortal danger at the hands of some large, vicious, fake-looking snakes. The first film already boasted terrific scenery so while impressive it doesn't come as much of a surprise here, beyond that it's laughable special effects, weak performances, and clichéd characters. No suspense, scares, or excitement make this a yawner. *½
this movie is cool
posted on 27 Mar 2009This movie is extremely well made for it's budget.The waterfall scene was great how you were in the boat when it went over,i got a chill in the back of my neck.The snakes did seem a bit large but it goes with the storyline.The acting was great and i enjoyed every bit of the movie.The first attack was awesome and i thought it was really cool.This movie is quite scary and i love the bits when you see just the end of the Anaconda those bits freaked me out.i think that everyone who enjoyed the first Anaconda movie will enjoy this movie even more.I would also like to comment on how i read someone elses comment and it said 'since when do anacondas have teeth'anacondas do have teeth or how else are they going to grab there prey and they also need to bite down and hold it.
Snake-Teaser
posted on 19 Mar 2009OK, so I saw this film the first day of release over here after having built up a high level of expectation. I must say that the locales chosen for the movie are quite beautiful and have a romantic, mystical appeal and the feel of the river and the jungle is quite palpable. You may miss some of the celebrity cast of the original movie, but, lets face it, the hero of the story is the Snake and maybe not having a well-known star cast was a wise decision. We can identify with them as ordinary mortals like us working in a corporate office, suddenly thrust into impossible situations like a drop down a waterfall, or an encounter with anacondas without the familiar comfort of a cellphone!The suspense element is built up in typical 'false alarm' style and we are kept on the edge of our seats waiting for the actual thing. I would say that the 'hero' has been underexposed for most part of the film and only towards the end do we feel its evil presence. The action scenes with the anacondas are too fast when they come and I would have liked some more drawn-out chase scenes. Since this is a sequel, the novelty and shock-value of the anaconda is reduced and the director is evidently hard pressed to show something to really shock the audience. Hence, some diversions like leeches sticking on a back, or a partially seen torso emerging from the cut belly of an anaconda or skeletons appearing in dark watery caverns. But in spite of everything the terror is just skin deep and it remains a film to be seen with the kids on a Sunday afternoon.
A Rare Monster Adventure Film
posted on 07 Mar 2009I found this film to have more than a modicum of imagination, wit and intelligence. Such is rare in the "monster" genre; and these elements make the film compelling and entertaining for me. I really like it. Anacondas is a fun, disastrous adventure from start to finish.The characters are well defined and engaging. They mesh skillfully within the plot as it develops. The actors one and all, did an excellent job. The theme is really an adventure, beset with conflicts between the characters as to whether to keep pursuing their original goal,after a disastrous boat trip up river, or run for their lives from the marauding giant snakes. The premise of the monomaniacal "bad guy/dedicated but greedy scientist", is crafted carefully as the film progresses and has a sense of reality to it. The camera work is excellent, and the action scenes far surpass the standard "shaky camera" efforts of so many major films today. They use quick cut techniques, and make things such as the battle with the crocodile, look realistic. Even the snakes are better behaved than in the spate of snake films that have been made in the past. They are not super snakes overall; just big ones. They look, and act, much more realistic than in any snake film I have seen. Now "Anacondas" is still a monster picture. So one must suspend a certain amount of reality, and accept the idea that anacondas live in Indonesia; such immense reptiles can weigh perhaps two tons and still slither among the tree branches; and a few other standard items indigenous to monster flicks. It works for me. In my opinion, the film has adventure to make it exciting, an excellent cast, a terrific monkey, great scenery, and photography that takes advantage of it; suspense, action, all interlaced with occasional tongue-in-cheek humor. Now that's entertainment! I love to just sit back and ride along with it all the way. And I must disagree with those people who complain about the blonde. KaDee is terrific! She and the monkey are my favorites from an outstanding cast.
Anaconda was a guilty pleasure. This is a guilty failure.
posted on 03 Feb 2009The grade A production values can't save the miserable "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid" from being an ultimate failure. The unbelievable plot sends a crew of scientists out into the wild of Borneo to find a rare species of Orchid (can you guess what it's called?) that serves as a potential cure for a disease. (I don't remember what but it's irrelevant.) Anyway, soon after their boat crashes off of a waterfall the group finds themselves stranded in the jungle and being picked off by hundred foot long computer animated anacondas. To be fair the snakes look marginally real at first but it starts getting so corny and campy that the novelty is lost. Not to mention there's not a single drop of tension, just a stream of blood and not even some good deaths seeing as it's a PG-13 romp.Watch "Anaconda" for a good guilty pleasure. Here they just have a girl that looks like J-Lo and there's no good back story, just endless poorly animated snake attacks in the deep jungle. It's really pointless and a waste of your money, there's nothing redeeming or remotely enjoyable about this mindless piece of %*#@ other than the beautiful cinematography and stunning scenery, but that does not make a good movie.
Good for a sequel no one asked for
posted on 18 Jan 2009There's nothing like a good Adventure film set in the jungle to get the adrenaline pumping. The 1997 cult hit 'Anaconda' certainly does just that as well as induce giggles due to it's level of camp. Cult status is a funny thing in the movies, because sometimes it's way over exaggerated by the media and that can lead to a sequel. 'Anaconda' is not the type of film that leaves a lot of unanswered questions begging to be answered. It was meant to be a one time deal, but the amount of money it and the hype around it was responsible for this 7 years later sequel. But surprise surprise it's actually pretty good in it's own right. Sure it may not be worthy of an awards, but for good mindless entertainment it's a winner.Pros: Beautiful, lush scenery and nice cinematography. A decent adventure score. Moves at a roller-coaster pace. Effects are not only pretty good, but they're a marked improvement over those in the original. The cast is game. Some good action scenes. A few pretty scary attack scenes. The filmmakers does a fine job of paying tribute to the old jungle adventure pictures.Cons: Little you haven't seen before. A few irritating characters, not to mention underdeveloped and so why should we care about them? Not all, but some of the dialogue is poor. Most attempts at humor fall flat.Final thoughts: The first 'Anaconda' is a fun guilty pleasure, but is by no means a great movie. You'd think a sequel to it would be terrible, but this first of a few sequels turned out to be a blast. Guaranteed to liven up a dull afternoon. I encourage you to stop here though, because the two sequels that follow really lack the energy of their predecessors.My rating: 3.5/5
You'd be better off just watching Survivor
posted on 12 Jan 2009I checked the "contains spoilers" box, but this movie is so predictable it's impossible to spoil. There's a blood orchid, which contains the secret to immortality, and some idiots from Hollywood put together a group of people that belong on MTV's "The Real World" to go look for it. The boat sinks, they argue - ENDLESSLY - over whether to continue the search for the orchid or just try to get out of the jungle, and they generally annoy the hell out of anyone unfortunate enough to be watching.The casting of this movie is just a joke. The color of the actors' skin was obviously far more important than any acting ability, and they're all so clichéd it's pathetic. By far the worst is the comedy relief character, who appears to get killed in one scene, resulting in massive cheers and loud applause from everyone watching, but no, it turns out he survives. That was all I could take of this stinky pile of crap. Did the writers think they were being clever with this garbage or something? Good lord.It actually wouldn't have been a half bad movie if they would have just had some decent characters in it, but Hollywood is about as likely to get that right as they are to eschew remakes in favor of creative new material. There's absolutely nothing interesting going on with these folks. They accuse each other of being greedy, they do it again, and again, and again. That is the ENTIRE extent of their personalities. Other than that, they could have at least had the girls wearing tight T-shirts to provide some eye candy. But no, even though marching through the jungle is like "doing a stair stepper in the sauna", they wear over-shirts on top of their T-shirts the whole stinkin' time. You'd be infinitely better off watching any incarnation of Survivor if you want to see hot babes.The plot contained nothing of even passing interest. They walk through water, they find an abandoned village, they walk some other place. The ominous theme music stars playing in the background, someone cautiously approaches something, and then...the monkey jumps out of the closet!!! They pull that one about three times.
Scary Film
posted on 11 Dec 2008This film will keep you on the edge of your seat, but it gets boring toward the end of the film. A Science Corporation becomes interested in a red orchid which appears in a jungle every seven years and this orchid contains a chemical that will give everyone the fountain of youth. Bill Johnson, (Johnny Messner) is hired to chart his boat for the expedition along with Dr. Jack Byron, (Matthew Marsden) There are females and a few other males who take this voyage through the horrors of deadly spiders, wild animals and snakes like you have never seen before. There is a tense moment when their boat goes over a powerful water fall and the excitement of finding out just where their boat was found, along with their belongings.
Creature Features Reject
posted on 25 Nov 2008In "Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid" - a movie whose title is probably more literate than anything contained in the screenplay - an assortment of hunks and babes (i.e. researchers and scientists) head out to the jungles of Borneo to find a rare tropical flower that may hold the key to eternal youth. While there, they encounter massive killer snakes who begin to hunt down and devour the members of the party one by one. So much for eternal youth."Anacondas" is a third-rate monster movie that brings little or nothing new to the genre. The snakes generate virtually no suspense since we can always see them coming from a mile away, and their smash-and-grab technique of attacking their victims means the special effects artists don't need to work too hard at making it all believable. The performances are bad, but in all deference to the actors, it's not as if they were given any real material to work with here. The characters are all hopeless stereotypes and the dialogue, except for the occasional expletive, could easily have emanated from one of those clunky drive-in speakers of the 1950's.Avoid it at all costs.
Good Grief!
posted on 13 Nov 2008OK, this was HORRIBLE. I was cringing for the actors and the inane lines they had to utter- "If there's a way in, there's a way out." What a gem. We should have been writing all these zingers down!! The only upside to this movie was it was supposed to be scary, but we (and this includes everyone that was in the theatre) LAUGHED through it all! Even had tears at some points. It is only worth seeing on video, at home, perhaps while drinking, and to get a good laugh. Geesh!!!! However, the actors sure were great looking and stayed amazingly clean throughout their jungle trek, and the CG animation was very good. There, I found something good to say. :) It wasn't easy, but there it is. Anyway, my daughter thinks I should no longer get to pick the movie we go to see.:)
Nothing like the 1997..
posted on 07 Nov 2008This is the case of the "bad movie good trailer" syndrome. If you have seen the trailer you would want to watch the movie, BUT it will be a very huge mistake. First of all the plot is too shallow, the snakes are badly made ,probably by a group of low-paid computer geeks,and also the director goes way over his head with some of the scenes. I mean the movie is fictional but this is too much!Second, the cast, who are those people? Well, I doubt their chance of getting a leading role in a famous movie again. There is a blond chick with a very strange and "cant describe from where" accent, two black dudes, one of them is kinda famous though, and more unknown people and by the way Salli Richardson? That funny sound she makes when she is scared.. very weird I think the poor woman cant scream, she imitates screams which you can only hear on Animal Planet.Despite..all of this I just wrote.. maybe you should watch the movie it does have its special moments.
Mediocre but somewhat entertaining.
posted on 03 Nov 2008Ok, well when you go to a movie with a title like this one I suppose you should know what to expect. This film has very little to do with the original "Anaconda", no Jon Voight, no J-Lo, not even Eric Stoltz... its just another hapless group of dumb Americans traveling down a river (in this case, to find a mysterious orchid that might yield the fountain of youth!!!) and getting picked off by giant snakes. This time we have a whole slew of Anacondas (in heat no less) attacking our little group. Yea, none of this makes the slightest bit of sense.. but hey.. its kinda fun anyways in a trasy low grade B movie kinda way.. Check your brain at the door and enjoy the CGI lizard picking off mediocre thespians. GRADE: D+
this is an awesome movie! (in its own special way)
posted on 08 Aug 2009well, many people would say that the second Annacondas is really dodgy, stupid and you feel less intelligent after watching it...well i must say i disagree!! this movie is so dodgy and stupid but thats what makes it so awesome! i mean come on people a movie about giant snakes eating people is never going to be educational or make any sense but who really cares??? all the characters are lovable! (there is even a very sweet little monkey!) there is lots of man candy! the captain has beautiful blue eyes, the hot Asian guy is very buff!, and there is even a cute little one who gets scared all the time! the effects aren't even that bad, they have much improved since the first one anyway! all the characters provide interest and the story line is not half bad in my opinion!!! there are heaps of good lines such as "did i say no commitments? i mean marry me!" so really in my opinion this is a stupidly awesome movie! peace out!