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.

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.

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 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!