Fresh and Exciting

Awesome Movie

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Introducing one of the most redundant sequels ever made! I have to say, when I first heard that Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece 'The Birds' had a made for TV sequel, I didn't quite believe it - but unfortunately, it turns out that it is true, and it's every bit as bad you would expect it to be. Gone is the gripping tension filled atmosphere of the original, and in its place is a whole host of terrible cringe-worthy performance, some atrocious dialogue and a plot that, while essentially the same as the one featured in the original film, isn't even a fraction as interesting second time round. The plot focuses on a family which comprises a mother, a father, a dog and two irritating daughters. They've decided to retreat to retreat to Lands End, which will enable him to write an important biology thesis, and for the family to get over the death of their son. However, they soon discover that Land's End isn't the serene paradise they thought it would be - as the local flocks of birds have once again, for some unknown reason, decided to begin attacking the people that live there.The oddest thing about this film is the fact that Tippi Hedren is in it. She must have really needed the money, as taking a role in this film is certainly an ill-advised career move. When the director's credit goes to the anonymous Alan Smithee, you can't count on good direction - and I certainly don't blame Rick Rosenthal (Halloween 2) for disowning this film. The majority of The Birds II concerns the audience cringing while the untalented stars reel off line after line of excruciating dialogue. None of the cast outside Hedren manage anything resembling a memorable performance - and if it wasn't for The Birds star's performance in the first film, she wouldn't either. Quite why she takes an entirely unrelated role is anyone's guess, but at least that fact makes The Birds II slightly less of a blemish on Hitchcock's original. There's a fair bit of violence, but none of it is very interesting and overall, I'm still not sure why I watched this film. Maybe curiosity, maybe just for completion purposes...who knows? But I would recommend simply watching the original again rather than watching this.

Alfred Hitchcock's memory and his legacy (his contribution to horror>) were hurt BADLY in the 90's. In 1994 with Birds II: Land's End, and in 1998 with the PSYCHO remake mainly. Birds II hurt very bad but the consequences weren't as severe as the ones genereated by PSYCHO (1998). I'm not going to be very rude on this little direct to video / t.v. low budget thing just because it didn't have expectations or intentions like PSYCHO (1998) tried. Let's focus on BIRDS II. This sequel is not even known by most fans of Mr. Hitchcock or the genre mainly because it was released only for video and t.v. (Thank God!). Also it has little to do with the 1963's masterpiece.Only the killer birds concept stays intact in this trash as in the original film.MINOR SPOILERS How in the hell could the major think he could exterminate all the killer birds with his shotgun?! Beyond reason. And what's wrong with the ending?! Whan an easy method to get rid off the dangerous killer birds. The couple almost having sex outside the house didn't see the birds coming?! Why wouldn't they get a room? These kind of things bother me taking in consideration that the original 1963 film reached almost perfection.The acting is awful and the f/x is laughable. I know it's a direct to video and T.V. film and there's no budget for these kind of projects.I'm a fan of these kind of films but in this case the producers didn't squeeze the low budget at it's maximum. I bet that EVIL DEAD, one of the best horror movies of all time had less budget than this. *END OF SPOILERS*How could Rick Rosenthal try to make a sequel to Hitchcock's masterpiece?! He did the same in 1981 when doing a sequel to John Carpenter's Halloween, but in this specific case, Halloween didn't generated a big cult by 1981 so he ran with luck. Rick Rosenthal thought he could be the best horror sequels director but clearly he's isn't. This atrocity is safely hidden in the worst horror movies of all time vault and believe me, it will never come out of there. There's no reason to watch this, not even if you're a morbid or die hard horror fan. I watched this once at 3:00 a.m. at local t.v. I tend to watch horrible movies that follow the "it's so bad it's good" formula.BIRDS II is not even terrible, it's beyond mediocrity. 1/10.

I only gave 2 points for this movie, 1 point for the talents of Jan Rubes who portrays the only sane character in the whole town and 1 point for the suprising ending.. After seeing this movie I can understand why the birds attack the family and the town. The family is messed up, a father who is so absorbed in his work.A wife that might be having an affair with her old boy friend. The town mayor makes Boss Hogg from the "Dukes of Hazzard" look like a genius.The town mayor seems to be more interested in billards than the town promblems. Of course the mayor does not even think of calling the National Guard or at least organizing a posse. No, the mayor goes out attacking 100 thousand violent seagulls with a single pump action shotgun.

Okay, you probably knows how dreadful this movie is, with its ending that can only generate a big, fat "huh ?" from those who didn't fall asleep (Though this might be the only way to stay until the end !). The saddest part was that Tippi Hedren was sent at the French Cinemalia festival in France in order to, hem, promote this thing. Having interviewed her, I can say she still is as fascinating as when she was Hitchcock's muse and deserves so, so much better. Burn, Hollywood,