source: The Birds II: Land's End

I watched this movie tonight on ABC Family channel. I thought that the television station cut off the ending of the movie until I read some of the comments on this database and realized it actually ends that way. What a disappointment! I only decided to watch it because Brad Johnson was in it. I'll give it a 2/10 instead of a 1/10 since BJ was in it!

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.

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 :.

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.

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.

Daphne Du Maurier's short story has inspired another attempt to tell the tale using the medium of film, with its advantages of visual images of the unusual behaviour of birds. Personally, I prefer the book, with its advantages of subtlety, but film has the important characteristic of attracting more viewers than books do readers. On the other hand, this particular film has the special disadvantage of telling the same story, transposed to another coastal village, as a deservedly famous film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Needless to say, The Birds II: Land's End does not manage to recreate the atmosphere of The Birds, but the acting of the family, Brad Johnson and Chelsea Field as Ted and May and two less well-known actresses as their daughters, at least compensated to some extent for a surprisingly weak unfolding of the tale of the aggression of birds, and the mostly irrational reactions of people to the unexpected. However, the dialogue with people in the village could have been much wittier. The one feature which was better than the much more famous film of this short story was the landscapes. Alfred Hitchcock concentrated on suspense, whilst this film has time to dwell more on aesthetics. Admittedly, this still does not bring it anywhere near to the class of The Birds, but it is still quite enjoyable. Why, one might ask, should a short story that has already been filmed so well be filmed again. The answer, in my opinion, lies in not being tied down to one set of images, so that the short story regains the elements of conjuring up a reader's images from his own imagination. The Birds II: Land's End offers the reader an alternative set of images to the ones which have been so ingrained into people's minds. It is also interesting to note that Jamaica Inn, Rebecca and Don't Look Now have all been filmed more than once. Although the film is weaker than The Birds, it is a passable filming of Daphne Du Maurier's short story.

It's a rare thing that a sequel made decades later can surpass the quality of the original, but such is the case for The Birds II: Land's End. Rick Rosenthal, of Halloween II and Halloween: Resurrection, cements himself with this film as this generation's Alfred Hitchcock. Every now and then, a visionary director will take a stale premise and breathe life and energy into the project. This is where Rosenthal surpasses Hitchcock in every respect. For instance, while the original "The Birds" is well regarded as a "classic", few remember that it was originally in black and white. While Hitchcock struggled to capture color on film, Rosenthal displays a wide range of them, effortlessly. While the first film presented the audience with two-dimensional antagonists, Land's End takes us deep within the minds of the birds- making for a much more frightening experience. We empathize with the birds, but Rosenthal deftly balances this with their carnal, innate evil, to the point where it's difficult not to root for them. There's a carnal sexuality to these birds that was sorely lacking from the original. Where they were simply black and white before, now the birds are brought to life, more complex (and sexy) than ever before. I recommend this film to students of film, fans of fun, and generally anyone looking to have a "hoot" of a time. It's clear no one on this production was "eating crow" after filming. All around, this is a "coo" movie, not for the jay-ded.

People seem to like bad movies like the first Birds. Hmm, i'm not really sure how anyone could have liked the first birds movie, it was just dull. i understand the things he was trying to say with it, the "artistic" things about it, but i honestly dont care about them. they're just stupid to me. now as for this movie, everything has their own special character. I liked how it was done, i honestly liked this Birds so much better than the first one. I'm tired of the overrated people from before. They had nothing to say, they had nothing good to do with their time, they ruined their own films and they've ruined people's lives from today by making them dumb into liking things from then. And now they call them masterpiece's ahh, how lame. at least this movie doesnt repeat everything people say twice.

I came on IMDb to check the details of this movie just after having seen it. To my surprise its genre was "horror" and not "comedy". But then, I saw Alan Smithee on the director's credits, a guarantee for good laughs (the MST3K way of course). It is absolutely ridiculous from beginning to end, so I enjoyed it very much. The dog's funeral was a real high point, I almost fell off the couch laughing!