GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Michael_Elliott The Birds II: Land's End (1994) * (out of 4)After the tragic death of their son, a husband and wife move with their two young daughters to a home by the ocean coast. It doesn't take long for the father to suspect that something strange is going on with the local birds and soon enough all humans are under attack. You really can't blame the producers for trying to do a sequel to the Alfred Hitchcock film, after all, the sequel to PSYCHO turned out extremely well but you can blame them for not coming up with a better screenplay. I've never been a big fan of the Hitchcock original but this sequel is just a complete mess from the word go. For starters, the screenwriters must have thought that people would want to sit around for a hour without anything good happening. We basically sit around for a hour just watching the lead character try to warn people about the birds and everything thinking he's crazy. We also have to sit around and watch the wife get hit up on by her boss who has one of the worst and most unfunny sense of humors in film history. It really doesn't help that the two daughters are among the most annoying children to ever be seen in a motion picture. Right from the start of the picture you can't help but be annoyed with the entire family so it's hard to really care about what happens to them. The film lacks any suspense and once the bird attacks do happen they're more funny than anything else and that's not good in a thriller. The performances in the film aren't much better, the characters are all forgettable and add in the fact that there's no suspense and you're left with a rather worthless film. Even the brief appearance by Tippi Hedren isn't enough to make this worth sitting through. THE BIRDS II: LAND'S END is a rare film that actually lives up to its bad reputation.

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 :.

MovieAddict2016 I've never been a huge fan of the original Alfred Hitchcock classic "The Birds," but it was well-made annd compared to this looks totally flawless. "The Birds II: Land's End" has to be one of the most shoddily produced nightmare projects of all-time -- it's a gruesome, chilling (but in a bad way) made-for-TV movie with no suspense. That's always a bad thing when you're talking about a so-called "thriller." No, "The Birds II" plays more like a modern-day gross-out slasher horror flick.A modern-day REMAKE of "The Birds" could work with a great director behind the project, but this sequel doesn't only feature one of the most untalented casts ever (with Brad Johnson leading the pack along), but a director by the name of Rick Rosenthal, who has a couple "Halloween" movies to his name and a huge score of television shows and pilots.Now get this. "Halloween II" was crap, right? And Rosenthal left his name in the credits.He called Alan Smithee on "The Birds II." That shows just how unbelievably bad this film is.From the lacking suspense to the poor acting to the ridiculous dialogue to the terrible special effects to the borderline stupid plot line (ooh Land's End, how clever!), "The Birds II: Land's End" will rightly be remembered as one of the worst misfires of all-time.0.5/5

gridoon A belated, acceptable sequel-remake of Hitchcock's superb 1963 film, this isn't quite the turkey you might expect to see after all the excessively hostile reviews it has received. Well-paced and well-shot, it builds to some fairly good attack sequences (it's much gorier than the original, of course). However, it lacks that special apocalyptic edge that Hitchcock's film had; it seems to be much more modest. (**1/2)