Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

cameron-kills-it Okay, so it's not exactly my favorite movie ever, but it wasn't terrible! It's about a family who move to a little town called Land's End for the summer, and to escape from the memories of their son who died in an accident. Soon, birds start terrorizing the townspeople and the family realizes that they have to take action. The acting is actually pretty good, and the film is actually pretty suspenseful! (Not nearly as much as the first one, though!) Anyways, the movie is kept me entertained for the whole hour and 27 minutes that it was on for. However, the main reason that I only gave the film five stars is that the ending is terrible! It is so abrupt and it seemed as though Alan Smithee (Rick Rosenthal) just got tired of making the film and decided that it was just good as it was. More people would enjoy this film if it weren't for that horrible ending! Rated: R for Violence and Gore.Grade: C

Elswet One thing about horror movies, is that the sequels are either so bad they make you want to hurl, or they blow the original out of the water. I've got to say that they usually do NOT best their originals.Why they would make a M4TV sequel to this, I have NO idea, but it was a BAD IDEA! Where the original wasn't a masterpiece, it WAS entertaining, atmospheric, and downright creepy. THIS was boring, unintelligent, predictable crap. This was a waste of film, time, and effort.I was more amused by throwing pennies at my roommate, than by watching this drivel.It rates a 1.9/10 from...the Fiend :.

HEFILM If there had never been a THE BIRDS would this still suck? Yes. Since there is, thank god, an original THE BIRDS does this suck even more? Yes.Watch fast for the scene where the white bird becomes a black bird before it explodes. Otherwise watch fast for any other film for a better use of your time.That's just on par with the lousiness of this on every level. Truly awful from a script from the usually awful Jim and Ken Wheat, made worse by a totally incompetent production, everyone should have used pseudonyms.Perhaps the Color PSYCHO makes this look slightly better by comparison, probably not.

insomniac_rod 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.