IMDb user comments for
The Birds II: Land's End (1994) (TV) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Filtre:

Meilleur Chronologique prolific Ils ont aimé Ils ont détesté Cacher les spoilers:

Page 1 sur 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

24 commentaires au total

---

10 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
You mean this wasn't a parody?, 3 septembre 2000

Auteur : Angeneer de Athens, Grèce

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!

---

10 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
What have you done to Tippi Hedren ?, 24 septembre 1999

Auteur : Phroggy de Paris, France

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,

---

7 utilisateurs sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Dire, 27 juillet 2002

Auteur : Mand-uk de Somewhere

One of the worst films I have ever seen. A really bad attempt to add another story onto Alfred Hitchcocks 1963 classic, which should have been left alone. The only really decent character in this film was the dog!

---

7 utilisateurs sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
As Worse As it Gets!, 17 février 1999

Auteur : Joseph SMilie (peggygravel@hotmail.com) de Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Alright, we can see the director wasn't expecting anything, because he used the infamous alias of Allan Smithee, so he probably made this film for a paycheck. But what a waste, if I had all the equipment he did, I would basically say to forget the script, and make it good, anybody could have done this. Besides with the film Beaks already made, did we really need to see a sequel to "The Birds"?

On a scale of 1 to 10, "Birds II" gets a 1! ( I wish we could vote zero)!

---

5 utilisateurs sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Terrible beyond belief, 23 mai 2005

Auteur : MovieAddict2009 de UK

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

---

3 utilisateurs sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Hitchcock's memory was hurt in the 90's., 6 juillet 2004
Auteur : insomniac_rod de Noctropolis

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

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.

---

5 utilisateurs sur 8 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Terrible Film, Terrible Acting, 9 mars 1999

Auteur : Robert Holmes de Viginia Beach, Virginia

This movie was the worst of the worst. You cannot try and make a sequel to a classic because it rarely works. The plot was boring and tired, the acting was terrible (especially the two daughters). The only humorous part was when the older sister sees a dead bird and goes " wow a dead bird" and then turns arounds and says " wow a dead body ". This film was pointless and boring and every copy of it should be burned. Rating 0 out of 10

---

6 utilisateurs sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Miss Hedren did not deserve this!, 19 janvier 2004

Auteur : demunfallopferseinefrau de Braunschweig, Allemagne

In one interview, Tippi Hedren once stated that, in order to raise money for her big cats, she would take any part that's offered to her. That explains why she did many of the movies she did in the 1990s, and it is not up to us to judge her for that.

Well, as for this movie: It must be one of the worst movies EVER made! Miss Hedren does her best to save this ship from sinking, but she fails due to the lack of scenes and a badly written script. There isn't ANYTHING good about this movie. (The talents of the actors are wasted here, everyone involved has never been as bad as in "The Birds II: Land's End". The photography, the "special effects", the editing... BAD, BAD, BAD!) The director must have been sleeping!

If you can avoid this film, please do so, you'll spare yourself a huge disappointment. 1 out of 10.

---

1 utilisateurs sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Bottom of the pecking order, 21 septembre 2009

Auteur : mutty_mcflea de Bristol, UK

Evan Hunter's witty banter. Rod Taylor's charm. Hitchcock's skill at building tension. Just a few of the things missing from this belated sequel, and I would go on but it's a long list. Lacking the ominous tone and intensity of the original, and lacking anything interesting of its own, this movie is the story of some boring marital problems, birds sitting on things and townsfolk jabbed with stuffed seagulls by someone off camera. Tippi Hedren pops up, as if that's some kind of seal of approval. The only interesting characters are the island's newspaper editor, played by James Naughton, and the friendly lighthouse keeper, played by Jan Rubes. They both have twinkles in their eyes, and occasionally drag the movie from its apathetic slouch.

---

1 utilisateurs sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Why Do People Hate This Movie So Much?, 29 août 2008

Auteur : poefan de Etats-Unis

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.

---

---

Page 1 sur 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

---

Liens liés

Plot summary	Notes	Revues externes
Plot keywords	Principaux Détails	Your user comments
Your vote history