Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

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.

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.

...to the 60's horror masterpiece. This is easily one of the worst horror movies of the past decade and that's something to say! The director Rick Rosenthal didn't have a clue of what's a horror movie or what'?! He did a good job in HALLOWEEN II but "Birds II" is a joke. The best thing about the movie is the scene where a couple is making-out and then the birds attack them... This movie has terrible special effects, a lame score, and worst of all a terrible selection of actors. Let's ban from our minds this movie.1/10

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!