The Birds II: Land's End (1994 TV Movie) User Reviews

A passable filming of the gripping short story

[coyets · 4/10 · 24 January 2006]

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.

Terrible beyond belief

[MovieAddict2016 · 2/10 · 23 May 2005]

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

Horrible, Even For A Horror Sequel

[FiendishDramaturgy · 2/10 · 21 March 2007]

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 :.

You mean this wasn't a parody?

[Angeneer · 1/10 · 3 September 2000]

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!

Miss Hedren did not deserve this!

[demunfallopferseinefrau · 1/10 · 19 January 2004]

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.

Not as bad as I thought it would be

[tamstrat · 5/10 · 25 November 2018]

Based on the reviews here I expected a terrible movie, and while it wasn't the best movie I have ever seen, it certainly wasn't the worst either. It held my interest and some of the bird attacks were actually pretty scary. As others have stated, the ending was my only real disappointment, it was way to abrupt and left me thinking, "what"? Overall, if I were home alone and bored on a rainy night I would watch this again.

What have you done to Tippi Hedren ?

[Phroggy · 1/10 · 24 September 1999]

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,

But it was essentially the same as the 1963 movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 2 September 2022]

Right, well after just having sat down to watch the 1963 Alfred Hitchcock movie "The Birds" once again here in 2022, then I also had stumbled upon the 1994 sequel titled "The Birds II: Land's End". Granted, I had never heard about this sequel, so I didn't even know that there was a follow-up to the 1963 movie.

And since I hadn't already seen "The Birds II: Land's End" before, of course I opted to watch what writers Ken Wheat, Jim Wheat and Robert Eisele had to offer here. It wasn't a whole lot they offered actually, as "The Birds II: Land's End" was essentially just a re-write of "The Birds", just set in a different location and with new characters. The events and the narrative in this sequel was just too blatantly copy and pasting the storyline from the 1963, with some minor changes added. So this was very much lazy script writing. And having just sat through the 1963 movie, then "The Birds II: Land's End" felt very redundant and pointless.

Sure, the effects in "The Birds II: Land's End" were much better than the effects in the 1963 original movie, no doubt about it. And that improvement definitely added something to "The Birds II: Land's End", but it just didn't manage to overshadow the fact that this was just a re-write of the 1963 movie.

The acting in "The Birds II: Land's End" was good, though I was only familiar with three cast members here; that being Chelsea Field, James Naughton and Tippi Hedren. Sure, it was nice that they had managed to get the lead actress from the 1963 movie, that being Tippi Hedren, to participate in "The Birds II: Land's End", but why as another character?

"The Birds II: Land's End" is an adequate enough movie if you have not seen the 1963 original movie "The Birds" from director Alfred Hitchcock. If you have seen the 1963, then you can easily skip on "The Birds II: Land's End".

My rating of director Rick Rosenthal's 1994 sequel "The Birds II: Land's End" lands on a five out of ten stars.

As Worse As it Gets!

[Peggy-7 · 1/10 · 17 February 1999]

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)!

At least as good as the original

[Marxist_Bros · 8 October 2013]

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.

Terrible Film, Terrible Acting

[subUrbia · 1/10 · 9 March 1999]

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

The Birds and its Sequel

[iamnater · 10/10 · 12 June 2023]

I enjoyed The Birds and the Birds IIl Land's End. The reason why it's the best, it's because I always perfer horror films with happy endings. However, The Birds franchsie are the exceptions, there are many other horror movies with happy endings and others without some. As far as I'm concern, there can be any other horror movies with happy endings, kid friendly or not. If there is gonna be reboots for The Birds, there would be different actors and mystery solved of what's causing birds to attack people and killed one bird and a happy ending so that an island would be happier and a better place.

It's a made for TV movie folks !

[thothgirl-43518 · 7/10 · 19 October 2021]

The movie is entertaining, there's a family story going on, and the birds got crazy. What else is there ? The actors are good and some familiar. It was made for TV and it's just fine. I feel it's been rated badly and unfairly. Maybe it shouldn't have been named The Birds 2.

The worst Smithee movie, probably!

[HEFILM · 1/10 · 29 September 2005]

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.

Hitchcock's memory was hurt in the 90's.

[insomniac_rod · 6 July 2004]

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.

The Birds II: Land's End

[HorrorFan1984 · 4/10 · 24 May 2020]

The Birds are attacking again in this relatively unknown made for TV sequel to a classic done by legend Alfred Hitchcock.

A family moves to a similar coastal town like Bodega Bay in order to get away from the people and sirens of the big city. They have bought what seems to be the same house from the original film where Melanie and Mitch escaped a vicious bird attack in 1963. The lady of the house is Mary and she is starting a job at a local newspaper in town, while Ted is a high school biology teacher currently writing his thesis. We seem them assimilate in town and the community all while fixing up their new house. One day, a bird attacks Ted which of course seems extremely peculiar to him. A male body then washes up on shore with his eyes gouged out. Eventually, birds start attacking everyone in town. Will anyone survive?

The Birds II was never going to be a success, especially when it was thrown into the made-for-TV category. With such a lower budget, poor direction, and TV quality acting/effects - what was there to expect other than a very average story that follows a classic horror film. We get a subplot of Mary's editor at the newspaper flirting with her, and Ted's struggle to write his thesis due to the recent death of his son. All of these things feel like filler and add very little to entertainment value.

The acting was OK. It was nice to see Tippi Hedren again, even though she was playing completely different character than Melanie Daniels in the original The Birds. Brad Johnson and Chelsea Field lead the way as the parents of the new family on Bodega Bay. They do a very average job given the dialogue they were given to work with. There weren't nearly enough likeable characters in The Birds II for me. The husband Ted was a bad husband who struggled to be there for his wife Mary, and she was in between trying to make the marriage work while kissing her editor at the newspaper office.

The Birds II: Land's End was a ho hum film that added nothing new to a movie in 1963 that did it so much better. There were some interesting bird attacks, including a very frantic finale which involves the birds attacking a lot of the townsfolk by the dock ... but overall, it was a disappointing sequel to a film that should probably never be touched with another sequel or remake again.

4/10

Wow.

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 24 December 2021]

Look, I don't write these articles to beat up on movies, but this is like shooting dead pigeons in a barrel.

Some facts:

Rather than playing Melanie from Hitchcock's The Birds, Tippi Hedrin plays Helen, the owner of a local store that knows all about the birds and remembers the events of the original. Why is she a different character? Is she there under witness protection? Did Hedrin only do this movie to get a check for her animal charity? Was this a worse experience than Roar?

This is not the first - or the last - sequel that Rick Rosenthal would make, what with being part of the best Halloween sequel and the worst. He made sure his name was not on this movie, as Alan Smithee is credited.

Ken and Jim Wheat, who wrote this movie, made a bunch of other sequels, like Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, The Fly II, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, It Came from Outer Space II and The Stepford Husbands. They're probably better known for The Silent Scream and Pitch Black.

Why would this movie be made? Was Showtime obsessed with sequels? Is it worth sticking around for the last ten minutes where seagulls go nuts and most of the cast gets killed? Would Hitchcock hate this movie? Did he once give Melanie Griffith a doll of her mother inside a coffin? Am I obsessed by movies that most people know better than to even try to watch?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and forever.

You can watch this on Tubi.

PS: Craig Edwards worked on this movie and shared this amazing article about his time on the set.

This is a pathetic movie

[ctrock · 1/10 · 31 October 2009]

This is the sorriest movie I have ever seen. I thought it was going to be a sequel, hence the Birds 2, but I should have known better. Why was Tippi Hedren even in the movie, she served no earthly purpose whatsoever? Maybe she moved to this God-forsaken island after being traumatized in Bodega Bay. I admit I thought that at first, but her character is not even the same one, so she really couldn't warn the people about the impending attacks. Everything from start to finish was poorly done, and the acting was hideous. I just gave up 2 hours of my life to watch this rubbish, and I am sure that the master(Alfred Hitchcock) was probably turning over in his grave.

I don't which is dumber the town mayor or the birds.(spoilers)

[Baldach · 2/10 · 6 June 2003]

I only gave 2 points for this movie, 1 point for the talents of Jan Rubes who portrays the only sane character in the whole town and 1 point for the suprising ending.. After seeing this movie I can understand why the birds attack the family and the town. The family is messed up, a father who is so absorbed in his work.A wife that might be having an affair with her old boy friend. The town mayor makes Boss Hogg from the "Dukes of Hazzard" look like a genius.

The town mayor seems to be more interested in billards than the town promblems. Of course the mayor does not even think of calling the National Guard or at least organizing a posse. No, the mayor goes out attacking 100 thousand violent seagulls with a single pump action shotgun.

You mean this is a sequel to a classic film?

[vip_ebriega · 2/10 · 9 February 2007]

My Take: Awful rehash of the classic Hitchcock thriller.

"Birds II: Land's End" is no sequel, it is a remake of Hitchcock's classic that looks like a sequel because, as some viewers can see, it bears very little resemblance to the classic. It's more of a remake, with a much more boring cast. It is a TV movie after all! The photography on the birds are great, especially during the attacks. Other than that, the film is poorly acted, lacks of the original's eerie tones and the ending wasn't very good. I really don't know what happened, why did the birds fly away? A very poor redo of Hitchcock's own ending for the original film. Well, I guess we will never get an answer to that now, but maybe someone out there can come up with a better ending.

TV movie rating: * out of 5.

A sequel most foul!

[The_Void · 3/10 · 30 November 2006]

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.

So Bad... That Alan Smithee wanted his name removed from the credits.

[buzzrock55 · 3/10 · 3 June 2022]

I haven't watched in awhile... I was going to watch again..and have been reading other 'reviews' ...and I'm reminded just how bad I remember it. If it has a Alan Smithee 'directors credit' ... its a good clue its not a nail biter.

A Great Movie

[MusicalAnime · 10/10 · 8 August 2004]

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.

Acceptable sequel.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 16 August 2000]

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)

Poor sequel but not the worst movie ever made

[atinder · 3/10 · 25 July 2012]

From a person who think the The Birds was a Masterpieces, there was mot one thing wrong with that movie.

I did not expect this movie to be anywhere near as good as first movie, i expected this to be really god awful, with all the bad comment on this net.

I must be honest, That I did enjoy that start of movie, the very first scene in the movie were descent, this is when the movie pecked on the top and the rest of the movie was just a time waster.

This movie dose of very bloody moment and they don't go overboard with gore.

The acting was not good but I have seen much worse, 3 and 1/2 out of 10 worth watching a least once.