.jpg?20251230')
I attended the official premiere of Anaconda (2025) at Epix Al Liwan cinema, having recently watched the original 1997 film to set a frame of reference. Despite that preparation, nothing could have anticipated the experience this reboot delivered.
Anaconda (2025) stands out as one of the most intriguing reboots in recent memory. It takes a film that most people in the ’90s agreed was terrible yet fun and flips the concept on its head.
The premise is refreshingly meta: a group of close friends acquires the rights to the 1997 horror cult classic Anaconda and embarks on a wild, shoestring-budget journey to reboot it, armed with nothing but ambition and a dream.
The original Anaconda is widely remembered as a cult classic of campy horror, which became a Razzie darling, taking home the award for Worst Picture in 1997. This B-movie adventure follows a group of filmmakers navigating the Amazon river, only to encounter gigantic, unrealistic anacondas. Despite its star-studded cast – including Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and Academy Award winner Jon Voight – the film became infamous for its clunky writing, uneven performances, and Voight’s notoriously over-the-top portrayal.
However, much like Bewitched (2005), this film attempts a clever meta approach by making the movie itself exist within its own narrative, allowing characters to interact with that embedded piece of media. But does it succeed at making it interesting? For the most part, yes.
The new Anaconda brings a surprising amount of heart, despite its occasional heavy-handed product placement. It largely stands on its own while nodding to the original in increasingly meta and playful ways. Strong performances and a good sense of humour help elevate the experience.
While it did feature the now-familiar ‘Jack Black heading into the jungle on a wild adventure’ trope, this film gives him more room to act than we’ve seen since King Kong (2005) – which is interesting since this is almost the same character. He does do all of his Jack Black-isms – scatting and yelling – but there are moments when he reminds us that he can truly act.
It has an interesting sense of humour that falls somewhere between Year One (2009) and a typical Marvel flick – occasionally raunchy, sometimes overtly safe and infused with a distinctly millennial tone, but it still does make for an entertaining time.
The film stumbles in a few areas, most notably its screenplay. While the idea is exceptional, the execution falters by the second act, causing the narrative to lose momentum and feel somewhat disjointed.
Surprisingly, for a movie that runs just an hour and 40 minutes, it manages to feel longer than it should.
The B-plot feels like a separate movie. The two plots barely interject until the third act, and when they finally do, the B-plot fizzles out almost immediately – and is forgotten.
Some scenes drag on too long, and there are some long lulls in the middle where it doesn’t feel like the story progresses, and maybe gets a bit too serious at times. Much of the comedy also falls flat, failing to land as intended.
Overall, despite its many screenplay flaws, the film ultimately works – it’s fun for the most part, thanks to strong performances and clever meta humour. Calling it better than the original sets a low bar, but it easily clears it, delivering an enjoyable experience, even if not an exceptional one.
Verdict: Three stars out of five.
– Aziz Alshawoosh
&uuid=(email))