Eventually Jennifer Lopez became an “A”-list star, and her three films in 1997 helped push her there. Selena gave her a chance to show some acting chops, and U Turn allowed her the prestige of a lead under director Oliver Stone.

And then there’s Anaconda. Though it offered a cheesy action flick, it earned the most money of the bunch, a factor one assumes helped Lopez’s career.

A documentary film crew led by director Terri Flores (Lopez) floats down the Amazon in search of a hidden indigenous tribe. Along the way, they encounter Paraguayan snake hunter Paul Serone (Jon Voight).

Though Serone claims he can help Terri and staff find the natives, instead he boatjacks the expedition to seek a mythical massive anaconda. This leads to danger for all involved.

When Anaconda hit screens in spring 1997, I figured it’d offer a goofy but lively action romp. My then-girlfriend and I headed to our local multiplex opening weekend.

This didn’t go well in terms of how we reacted to the movie. About halfway through the movie, she asked if I wanted to leave.

I thought about it, but I hate to bail on films early so we stayed. I regretted this, as the terrible flick never got better.

29 years later, I figured I should give Anaconda another view. Did this movie really stink as bad as my ex and I felt in 1997?

No, I can’t claim that I found Anaconda as unwatchable in 2026 as I did in 1997. Don’t take that as an endorsement, though, as this undeniably becomes a pretty terrible movie.

I suspect I tolerated Anaconda more in 2026 than in 1997 due to expectations. I went into that theatrical screening with the thought it’d deliver a lively action romp, whereas I entered my Blu-ray viewing with thoughts I’d re-encounter a cinematic dud.

And re-encounter a dud I did. Without a wasted night at the multiplex on the line, though, this 2026 experience didn’t bug me as much.

Nonetheless, Anaconda remains a bad movie. I get the feeling it enjoys a “so bad that it’s good” fanbase but I can’t even find it interesting in that manner.

Instead, Anaconda just seems dull. We get extended periods in which little of interest happens among the sporadic moments of cartoony violence.

Anaconda desperately wants to do for enormous snakes what 1975’s Jaws did for sharks – and I mean that literally. The film borrows liberally from the Spielberg classic, right down to shots that emulate that filmmaker’s signature stylistic choices.

These do little more than remind us how awful Anaconda is. We find flat and personality-free characters, and despite his campy best efforts, Voight can’t make Serone anything more than a cheap Quint knockoff.

Anaconda brings us a filmmaker without obvious talent, which probably becomes why director Luis Llosa didn’t enjoy much of a career. 1994’s The Specialist managed a profit thanks to international grosses and while 1993’s Sniper didn’t find much of an audience in theaters, it must’ve done well on video since it spawned a franchise on that format.

As did Anaconda, as it spawned four low-budget straight to video sequels along with a high-profile 2025 Paul Rudd/Jack Black comedic reboot. That one actually brought in a little less in non-adjusted dollars than the 1997 flick did, though since both apparently cost the same $45 million, it likely made the same minor profit.

I can’t figure out why the Anaconda franchise persisted over nearly 30 years. The original stinks and I find it tough to imagine any of those bargain basement sequels clicked either.

Llosa brings zero flair or tension to the proceedings, and we find CG creatures that looked bad 29 years ago, much less now. A mix of action and horror that succeeds in neither realm, Anaconda remains a terrible movie.

Anaconda appears in an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. While not an awful image, the movie lacked the detail I’d expect from Blu-ray.

Closer elements offered decent delineation, but anything wider could seem blocky. This still meant reasonable sharpness much of the time but these exceptions became notable.

Although I noticed no issues with jaggies or shimmering, some edge haloes manifested. Print flaws didn’t interfere but grain felt chunky and probably suffered from artifacts that amplified that appearance.

Anaconda went with a palette that emphasized tropical greens and ambers along with blues for nighttime scenes. These felt acceptable, though they tended to seem a bit heavy.

Blacks looked inky and shadows came across as somewhat thick. Enough positives arrived here for a “C-“ but the movie could use a remaster.

Anaconda enjoyed a 5.1 soundtrack theatrically, and that mix appeared on all DVD versions as well as a long out of print Sony Blu-ray from 2009. The latter offered lossless TrueHD 5.1

For reasons that mystify me, this Mill Creek BD came only with lossy Dolby Digital 2.0 audio. Yuck.

Within its stereo confines, the soundscape actually worked pretty well, as both music and effects spread across the front in a positive manner. However, basic two-channel audio for a big studio film was woefully outdated by 1997.

Audio quality also seemed largely good, with speech that remained mostly concise and natural. Music showed positive range.

Effects came with generally solid accuracy and punch, but none of these sounded as warm and robust as they would via a lossless mix. While I found the stereo track to seem adequate, it simply lost major points due to the absence of multichannel material and lossless reproduction.

No extras appear on this disc, though the set does includes a DVD copy of the film. It also comes devoid of supplements.

While I didn’t hate Anaconda as much in 2026 as I did in 1997, this still became a pretty terrible movie. Clunky, silly and essentially devoid of thrills, it fails in most possible ways. The Blu-ray comes with iffy picture, dated audio and zero bonus features. Nothing about the movie or the BD satisfies.