Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  Fourth and hopefully final film in the Anacondas series. This film still has every bit of awful filmmaking as the last three films that came before it. This is a poorly made film that looks cheap, and has no sense of delivering a good, thrilling story. The Anacondas films are bad, but… More
  Fourth and hopefully final film in the Anacondas series. This film still has every bit of awful filmmaking as the last three films that came before it. This is a poorly made film that looks cheap, and has no sense of delivering a good, thrilling story. The Anacondas films are bad, but this is among the worst films I've seen in this franchise. There have been some good nature gone wild films, but the thing with this series is that it just isn't interesting. The films weak plot, poor performances of the cast, really brings down the film. This is standard low-budget trash with no direction. This is a film that scraps the bottom of the barrel of bad ideas, and doesn't thrill the viewer. This is bad filmmaking at its worst. This film looks cheap, has a bad cast and no plot. If you're looking for a horrible film, then this third low-budget straight to DVD sequel to Anacondas is yet another bad film in a series that never should have happened. The first film was bad, but making three awful sequels is beyond terrible. Don't watch expecting anything good, this a failure in terms of a good horror film, and it really doesn't provide you with good entertainment, unless you're looking for the ultimate in awful entertainment, then this is one of those films to check out. You can guess that considering that this is a made for TV movie, that this will be horrible. Don't waste your time watching this. This yet a sequel that fails to delver what the viewer wants. Spend your time watching something else.

• 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.