IMDb > Anaconda III (2008) (TV) > IMDb user reviews

IMDb user comments for
Anaconda III (2008) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 25 reviews in total 

17 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Beware: This is NOT Anaconda 3..., 28 July 2008
2/10
Author: Slasher_Guy

Anaconda 3: The Offspring (or so it's called) tells the story about testing gone wrong in a facility, which causes an outbreak of two deadly Anacondas who have gone under scientific experiments and are now deadly, larger and stronger than ever. A mercenary (David Hasselhoff) and his team are sent to capture it, along with a scientist (Crystal Allen) who tags along. Anaconda 3 is the first of two Sci-Fi channel sequels to the first two Anaconda movies, and quite frankly...it sucks!

I was excited for this movie, for the pure fact that I really enjoyed the second and that I thought this movie would be a cheesy, fun b-movie...even for Sci-Fi channel standards. I was impressed with the stills, and well...David Hasselhoff battling snakes? I so wanted to see this! Unfortunately, it's a complete mess and doesn't even feel like an Anaconda movie. It's as if the writers of the script just slapped on the "Anaconda 3" title. Not once, apart from the opening sequence with the camera panning over the forest, did this movie feel like an Anaconda movie. I'm convinced it isn't.

The acting was mediocre, and Crystal Allen was the best actor in the movie. What annoyed me was the fact that they sold David Hasselhoff as the title name in the movie, when he is hardly even in the movie. He appears briefly at the beginning, then once again and then doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the movie. People expecting John Rhys Davies to have a good amount of screen time will be disappointed also, because he's underused also. The characters weren't very entertaining and the mercenaries felt like idiots waving guns around. They were also bought into the script very quickly, and just felt thrown in. Most of the actors are foreign also, so their obvious fake accents didn't help. As for the character development? There was none.

The CGI for the snakes was crappy, and if you thought the CGI in Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid was bad, this is miles worse. The Anaconda only looked decent enough when wrapping itself around victims. The kill scenes were easily the most entertaining part of the movie, because they were bloody, stupid, unrealistic and silly. But then, even these were rather bad...because all the fake blood splatter did not help things, especially when it looks computer generated and very cheap. Soundtrack was awful, and had a constant cheesy theme playing from start to finish. Dialogue was meh...the occasional "scientific" line thrown in from Crystal Allen's character.

I was also confused by the movie, because I had no ideas what part of the world the characters were at! There would be non-English speaking foreigners one second being eaten, and then an American woman and her kid relaxing in the sun. Then there would be an old, foreign town shown in a flashback and so forth. Most of the characters looked foreign, but spoke with American accents and I know the movie was filmed in Romania, but come on! I had no idea where the characters were supposed to be, and I also wish they used a boat and river in the movie, like the first two. Most of the time, it's running in the woods or driving around in a car with a fake backdrop.

Overall, Anaconda 3 "isn't" Anaconda 3, so don't be fooled. In fact, it's just a movie that's cashing in on the title and marketing itself as a sequel, when it really isn't. People who hated the first two will hate this most likely, and those who enjoyed both (or one) of the first two movies, will most likely hate this one too. I've seen worse from Sci-Fi, but I've seen better. I'll watch the 4th one, but I predict it will be just as bad as this one. Disappointing! This isn't a sequel as far as I'm concerned! Avoid.

2/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
OK um...awful, horrible, and boring..., 28 July 2008
1/10
Author: dylanap24 from United States

OK well I thought this movie was well look at the title. (^) OK Anaconda (1997) I thought was a quite enjoyable movie and I think it is underrated. Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid was also pretty enjoyable so I watched this 3rd film. I am completely disappointed. It just plain sucked. David Hasselhoff did OK as his character but the movie was awful. Most of the acting sucks, it has far to much gore. Don't even get me started on the damn snakes. The CGI sucked. I've seen stuffed snakes look more real than the snakes in the movie.

The pros of this movie: none. None what so ever. The cons everything. I'm sorry but this movie was just really awful. They really should've stopped after this. Anaconda 4 BIG mistake. The snakes looked way better in the first two movies these snakes looked like crap. Sorry everything about this movie sucked. STOP making snake movies. OK overall its awful, horrible, and boring.

0/10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
You've seen it before a million times, 27 July 2008
5/10
Author: sgtking from United States

Cult status can be a very powerful thing. The original 'Anaconda' is one of those so-bad-it's-good films that has developed a cult following since it's release. This lead to a sequel seven years later, one that didn't quite catch on like it's predecessor. Now I like both, and about the same, but it's a no-brainer that the world didn't need the sequel. Why? Because we already have enough killer snake movies, especially ones where they're genetically enhanced or mutated by some chemical. But yet Sony wasn't done with the series and announced that two more sequels were being shot back-to-back. Then we learned they would air on the Sci-Fi Channel before hitting DVD. Didn't sound too promising, but since I enjoyed the first two I decided to give it a chance. Fortunately I didn't regret it...much.

Pros: None of the actors are going to win any awards for their performances, but for this type of movie they're pretty good. Since this isn't really a Sc-Fi Channel original movie, we get plenty of the red stuff and some gore. Fast-paced. A dash of good humor thanks to actors John-Rhys Davies for his scenery-chewing performance and David Hasselhoff for...well, you'll see. Pretty good-sized body count. Nice scenery.

Cons: This has been done many times before, and better. The CGI, though still not as a bad as in the first film, is still pretty weak. Most of the characters are one-dimensional and we don't get to know them well enough to care for them. Some unnecessary padding.

Final thoughts: What we have here is yet another unnecessary and forgettable sequel that no one really asked for. But at the same time it's not the worst way to spend an hour and a half on a dull afternoon. I just hope that after these Sony decides to lay this one to rest, because really you can't go any further with this concept.

My rating: 2.5/5

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
What a Crap!, 20 November 2008
1/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

While researching an offspring of anaconda with transgenic for saving lives discovering cure for cancer and Alzheimer in the facility of Wexel Hall Pharmaceutics, the CEO Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies) refuses to invest in a larger tank and more security and staff as advised by the head of the project, Dr. Amanda Hayes (Crystal Allen). When he focuses a light in the tank, the anaconda attacks and breaks out the confined facility. Murdoch hires a team leaded by the mercenary Hammett (David Hasselhoff) to destroy the animal.

What a crap this lame "Anaconda III" is! This collection of clichés is awful, not funny, noisy and ridiculous, with terrible screenplay, acting and CGI. I believe the anaconda likes dyed blonde since the beast attacks everybody but the twenty-nine year old scientist along the story. Do not waste your time like I did is my final advice. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Anaconda 3"

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
All in all it sucked, 29 July 2008
3/10
Author: vinniesacura from United States

For the most part I was Horrified! At the movie that is, the cgi was the worst of all 3 movies and the story was just plum stupid. Upon the original release of Anacondas back in 97, the cgi was great. Most of the time you couldn't tell that the snakes where fake. However in this picture every time you see one of the over-sized snakes, all you see is a glowing snake-like figure thats really shiny whom looks nothing like the snakes in the original film. Frankly I would be ashamed to be J.lo, Ice Cube, or Jon Voight! Don't get me wrong I loved the original, thats why I get so mad when someone does a sloppy remake! I really wish that someone could tell me why we are farther in times yet our cgi worsens with every year. Im a big cgi I nut, if stuff looks fake, I don't really care to watch it. Also the snakes in the first two films where proportionate, the weren't so big that you would never believe them to exist. This film is like a remade "Python". The snakes are probably a few hundred feet long! How stupid? If s0ny produced this film, then I have nothing more to say, they should loose their L's to shoot films.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Giant Snakes and The Hoff..., 28 July 2008
5/10
Author: stsinger from Boston, MA

Harmless fun. A couple of giant, generically altered snakes break out and terrorize people. The snakes are not-great CGI, but they commit a lot of mayhem, probably more graphically than you'd expect. David Hasslehoff (yup, you read that right) leads the group that is chasing them. Best part of the flick, by far, is Crystal Allen, who plays a PhD and a snake expert, and she's my favorite type of snake expert PhD, the type that is a smoking hot blonde and spends almost the entire movie in a tight, form-fitting tank top. Crystal also works hard to sell her character, and she's fun to watch.

Debuted on Sci-Fi channel in advance of the DVD release, you could do a lot worse.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Hoff fine, movie is stunningly bad..........................., 28 July 2008
2/10
Author: panamint from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hasselhoff fans please don't be angry because my comments here are in no way aimed a The Hoff or his talents. I tuned in to "Anaconda 3" because I am a fan of Sci-Fi Channel and a fan of Hasselhoff (who is a competent actor) but was stunned by how bad this movie is. Despite The Hoff's charisma and the fact that he can and does manage to do a good acting job playing villain roles, this movie is just lousy.

Very fake snake, cheap CGI, no character development. But the main sin of the movie maker here is that "Anaconda 3" is just not entertaining. It drags in places and often is just not scary.

Yes its a "B" movie and in a TV "B" movie I can live with only a smidgen of character development, but here we actually have none. Not any. Zero.

Huge snake climbs around roofs but doesn't even knock off a shingle. In contrast, the sci-fi movie "D-War" (2007) has a similar monster but when it crawls on a roof, the building cracks and debris falls off.

In "Anaconda III" the animal weighing thousands of pounds rushes around the forest at lightning fast speed but doesn't even snap a twig or stir up any dust (reference "D-War" again), although it leaves a trail in the grass that men can walk through. I know snakes are supposed to be sneaky, but... this giant is not believable enough, even by Sci-Fi Channel standards, and I enjoy most of their product.

The extremely fake visuals overwhelm the very capable performances by the cast, and unfortunately cancel out The Hoff's charisma and ability.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Where's the Hoff?, 28 September 2008
4/10
Author: André de Lorde from United States

When a film features David Hasselhoff and his crack team of snake-fighting mercenaries facing off against a 60-foot-long genetically altered anaconda before the opening credits even roll, any fan of B-movie cheese can arguably presume they're in for a good time. Hasselhoff's self-deprecating humor and strange otherworldly charm make him an endearing punchline, and also translates well into the world of Sci Fi Channel stardom. Sadly, after that opening scene, The Hoff all but disappears for the next 45 minutes of the film, and what starts with campy reptile-killin' fun quickly spirals into boring laboratory diatribes about the dangers of gene manipulation and the real-world uses of unlikely immortality drugs.

Although the ads would lead one to believe otherwise, ANACONDA III actually centers on Amanda (Crystal Allen), a scientist who works for Universal Bio-Tech and the nefarious—and appropriately named—Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies, obviously still fuming over not being included in the new Indiana Jones film). It seems that he's been playing God with the reptilian world and has somehow managed to create an anaconda that's not only larger and angrier than any snake on Earth, but sports a three-foot machete growing out of its tail. This Ginsu butt comes into play numerous times during the film, and while the results are always spectacularly gory, a serpent's bladed posterior is inescapably difficult to take seriously.

Since all B-movie snakes carry the cure for (insert disease here), another round of unethical testing is underway, and it isn't long before our slithering behemoth breaks out of its cage, knocks off everyone but Amanda and her boss and heads out into the lush green wilderness of Romania. It's only then that Hasselhoff's Hammett and a group of ALIENS space-Marine rejects (resembling the United Colors of Benetton) are hired to eradicate the monster, which has taken up residence in a nearby farmhouse. With that, we've now got the prerequisite team of Special Ops, the cheap sets and the giant CG monster…everything required for a yet another weak entry in the recent string of bland Sci Fi Channel originals.

Director Don E. FauntLeroy, who served as DP on the JEEPERS CREEPERS movies and nearly 50 other films, has managed to shoot a good-looking feature, but fills it with every painful cliché imaginable. First-time screenwriters Nicholas Davidoff and David Olson sprinkle in occasionally fun dialogue, but their script is ultimately burdened down with bland characters and extremely corny, uninspired plot twists. Hasselhoff's Hammett, a fun antihero who deserves more screen time (and one-liners), is delegated to a glorified supporting role beneath far less interesting characters. Rhys-Davies, whose cameo appearances work quite well, will hopefully receive a beefier role in ANACONDA IV (the direct sequel shot back to back with this movie, scheduled to debut this December); otherwise, he served virtually no purpose at all. It's only Allen as the spunky Amanda who breathes any life into her role; a surprise, given her lack of substantial film experience prior to headlining this one. Unfortunately, given the material, even she has trouble rising above the movie's stupendous mediocrity. When all is said and done, ANACONDA III should have been a much better film, but it also could have been much worse. The cast is sorely mismanaged, the plot is all over the board and the digital FX—particularly a handful of atrocious greenscreen driving shots—are by-and-large laughable, but the cast and crew obviously worked hard with what little they had. With any luck, this sequel's surviving characters will find more to do in the next entry, and we'll end up with a film that's not just meatier, but more entertaining. A direct-to-cable second follow-up to a creature feature headlined by J. Lo and Ice Cube doesn't need to be a masterpiece, but it should be passable as an evening's fleeting distraction. ANACONDA III is just barely that, but it's still regrettable that something as inherently amusing as David Hasselhoff fighting a giant snake couldn't have ended up just the slightest bit more fun.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Possibly the worst movie sequel I have ever seen..., 4 March 2009
1/10
Author: doctorbob1994 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Although I have never been a "fan" of the Anaconda series of movies, when I heard this would air on Sci-Fi Channel I decided to watch it since I've seen the previous two installments. Big mistake... This movie comes fully equipped with bad acting from all the supporting cast (except for Mr. Davies and the Austrailian guy), horrible snake and gore effects, gaping plot holes, absolutely retarded story (Giant snakes are the key to immortality?!), and half-@ssed directing. *SPOILER ALERT* Also, the sudden change of Hasselhoff's character at the end of the movie from good guy to bad guy was unnecessary in the highest degree. It's almost as if the writers of this abomination decided to add a *startling plot twist* after the completion of the movie and revised the script, as his turn makes no sense at all. *END SPOILERS* I seriously advise against renting or buying this movie, but if you have a totally overwhelming urge to watch this, don't say I didn't warn you...

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
It's got THE HOFF in it. Questions? Remarks? Nobody? Yupp, i thought so., 30 January 2009
Author: the_last_dodo from Austria

OK, this is such a load of horse poo i give it a minus 1. So bad and cheap and again bad it is actually not even funny. Filmed in east Europe but failing east Europe standards - that says a lot. The entire film budget probably would not last for producing half a bay watch episode. Note the elegant transition because this brings us right to ...

And then there's the thing where this movie has THE HOFF in it, which counts automatically for 3 points. Making a total of 2 points.

I take it all warnings to watch this crap are in vain because YOU MUST HAVE THE HOFF! And right you are.

Trust in THE HOFF, THE HOFF is good.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history