Anacondas: Trail of Blood (2009)

30% of users liked it
(24,782 ratings)

A dying mogul wages one last, desperate bid to extend his life, in the process pitting a beautiful herpetologist against the very slithering horror that she helped to create. Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies) is convinced that he can cheat death by drawing on the regenerative power of the elusive blood… More A dying mogul wages one last, desperate bid to extend his life, in the process pitting a beautiful herpetologist against the very slithering horror that she helped to create. Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies) is convinced that he can cheat death by drawing on the regenerative power of the elusive blood orchid. But when Murdoch's doctor tests the experimental serum on a baby snake, the tiny serpent grows into an unstoppable monster overnight, devouring the doctor whole before breaking free from the lab and embarking on a gruesome rampage. Now, it's up to fearless herpetologist Amanda (Crystal Allen) and her team of scientists to collect the coveted orchids while avoiding both Murdoch's gang of heavily armed thugs, and the giant abomination that will prey on anything or anyone who crosses its path. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

Play Trailer

Rating, Runtime: R, 1 hr. 28 min.
Directed By: Don E. FauntLeRoy
Genres: Action & Adventure, Television, Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy

In Theaters: Feb 28, 2009 Wide
On DVD: Jun 2, 2009
Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Critic Reviews

David Nusair, Reel Film Reviews
...a minor improvement over its nigh disastrous predecessor...
Staci Layne Wilson, Horror.com
This trail leads to a dead end.

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Featured Audience Ratings

Phil H

Well this was just an extention of the third film and like the third film its very very poor in pretty much every aspect. Again I can't recommend this film in any way as everything is bad, the effects again are terrible with appalling cgi on the anacondas and very dubious… More
Well this was just an extention of the third film and like the third film its very very poor in pretty much every aspect. Again I can't recommend this film in any way as everything is bad, the effects again are terrible with appalling cgi on the anacondas and very dubious blood/body animation on humans being eaten by the snakes and this all takes place in a what looks like a local wooded area. The casting is again all unknowns (of course) with one or two returning from the third film, Linden Ashby pops up to continue his D-movie career, hes the only biggish name here apart from John Rhys-Davies who returns..for some reason. Put it this way...if you thought the third was bad then there's no point watching this, in fact I would give both this and the third a miss as both are just one bad film chopped into two and utterly rubbish, talk about destroying a franchise.
Ken S

Better shot than 3, but it's still a total crap-fest. 2 is far and away the best in the series.
Luke B

Shot back-to-back with Anaconda 3, this carrieson the riveting saga of snakes, flowers and secret formulas. It's come a long, ridiculous way since it's humble origins. This continues the cheap, made for television feel. The CGI is just an effortless mess which just… More
Shot back-to-back with Anaconda 3, this carrieson the riveting saga of snakes, flowers and secret formulas. It's come a long, ridiculous way since it's humble origins. This continues the cheap, made for television feel. The CGI is just an effortless mess which just can't interact with it's surroundings. The original had the charm of campy "throat-o-vision" which was actually practical effects. The fourth installment doesn't even have David Hasselhoff. There were a few genuine laughs, which suggest this should have been a comedy. The grenade scene was just unexpectedly goofy, but pleasant.