AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

xheartless Let's start it of with the acting. When I watch a movie, I expect it to feel real. I expect it to feel natural. When I was watching this movie I felt horrified by how the directors can actually think that people start dialogs like they do in this movie.The effects does not feel real and the plot has definitely been used before. And the way the movie flow and the way things happen, feel so fake. And not like some kind of Quentin Tarantino movie either.To top it all of I feel like they made the wrong actors play the wrong characters. None of the voices feel like a fit.Still, if you are really bored, You could watch it. But you should not watch this film to be amused.

TheLittleSongbird The first Anaconda I was not blown away by, the second had me entertained and the third was horrendous. The fourth was better than the previous instalment but in almost every way it is still poppycock. Crystal Allen returns and she is decent and John Rhys-Davies tries hard with his weak material and underwritten character, but that is pretty much the only praise I can give. The scenery/sets I suppose were sort of nice, but they were not given any justice by the dull photography and hackneyed editing. The music is generic and forgettable again, the effects are not that great and don't do anything to enhance any suspense in the atmosphere. The direction is also sloppy, the dialogue is awful with none of it ringing true and the story is an incoherent mess. The acting apart from Allen and Rhys-Davies is very poor and not helped by the fact that there are too many characters so any empathy we try to feel doesn't come out. Overall, a mess but better than the third. 2/10 Bethany Cox

julian kennedy Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood: 4 out of 10: Anaconda 4 has some surprisingly effect scenes in its 88 minutes.There is a car chase towards the end of the film; first the snake is chasing a car, all the while a gun fight has erupted among the passengers and an intruder. There is also a silhouetted chase on a sunset drenched hill between three groups of characters that had no prior knowledge of each other with the snake in the mix. Heck there is even some tender moments between an older gun toting woman and a blond man child lost in the woods as a snake watches them.Much like a previous incarnation, (Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Red Orchid) this movie comes awfully close not needing the snake at all. In fact it, dare I say it, a removal of the anaconda may have made Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood a slightly better film.The non-snake stuff is fairly simple. John Rhys-Davies, in full pick up a paycheck mode, is a bad guy with bone cancer who has financed a cure which involves genetically altering snakes. He hires a hit man (whom brings along six friends who cannot shoot straight and twirl their mustaches) to inexplicably kill the lead scientist (who has disappeared, read been eaten.) The assassin is also asked to kill a blond chick played by Crystal Allen. She acts like an old west gunslinger but is apparently a herpetologist. The blond chick meanwhile is setting explosives in an orchid bed located in one of those ridiculously well lit caves with light bulbs every foot burning 24/7. She runs into what appears to be a fifteen year old boy whom immediately becomes her love interest in a weird Private Lessons kind of twist. He is looking for the base camp where some other unrelated (non-giant snake creating) scientists are digging up a frozen body out of a UFO or something.Like I said the snakes are almost crowded out of their own movie. It is probably for the best. While the CGI is better than many other killer snake movies this is damning with faint praise indeed. The snakes in question don’t look like anacondas or even snakes at all. Replacing shark fins with bear claws does not make the shark scarier. And giving anacondas silly rows of over-sized teeth and the ability to regenerate like the T-1000 (Terminator 2 Judgment Day) does not make them any scarier.Oh and while I picked on the first movie for having anacondas in a jungle, they are after all swamp and marsh dwellers; and picked on the second movie for having them in Borneo, which is in Asia last I checked; I don’t have words to begin to describe the draw dropping silliness of Anacondas in Romania. The Carpathians in fall do not create the proper snake attack vibe unless it is a 60 foot cottonmouth. Also a note to the Sci-fi Channel: If I see “Bear-Shark Claws of Death” on your channel anytime soon I’m coming after you guys. I’m just giving a friendly warning here.

dbborroughs Yet another giant CGI snake on the loose tale. This time its got something to do with orchids which creates a serum that allows one to heal rapidly but also causes rapid growth, aggression and a need to eat constantly. A billionaire with bone cancer needs the serum to survive but unfortunately the snake it was tested on broke out of its cage, ate its creator and is now loose in the wilderness. Not bad, but there have been too many similar films for this to really be effective (Thank you SCIFI channel for creating an unnatural demand for these sort of films). Worse the effects, while adequate are such that they never generate any real scares because its clear nothing is real. Its not a bad film, but its unremarkable. Wait until this hits cable.