IMDb > Birdemic 2: The Resurrection (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Birdemic 2: The Resurrection
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Birdemic 2: The Resurrection More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 30 reviews in total 

28 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

You can't intentionally repeat accidental mediocrity

1/10
Author: debtman from Columbus, OH
16 May 2013

Let me start by saying, I am a huge fan of the original Birdemic. I've seen a lot of bad movies. Battlefield Earth is pretty bad. The Room is pretty bad. Manos, The Hands of Fate is pretty bad. Birdemic trumps them all.

And now we have a sequel. Believe me, I was excited to see this. So very very excited, which no one I know understands. But whatever, I know what I like and I like crap. Unfortunately, this movie does not deliver. I'm sorry, but there it is. The major problem you've got here is that this movie is trying way to hard to be as terrible as the first one, and that effort completely ruins it.

It's like William Hung on American Idol. You just can't believe it and are mesmerized by how awful it is. But then he just keeps doing the same thing over and over, milking it for fame and money once he realizes people like that he's terrible. Yes, I'm comparing this movie to William Hung. And yes, like poor Will this sequel has hit the point where it goes from being amusing to just being annoying.

Birdemic failed in essentially every way a movie could fail. The acting was horrible, the camera work dismal, the script was ridiculous, the sound work utterly terrible. I could run out of synonyms for 'bad' just trying to describe the first movie. And that, friends, is what made it great. Here you have a work of art lovingly created by someone and thrust out into the world, and you just cannot believe anyone could create something so awful.

Now imagine that experience, but now it's completely obvious they were trying to make something that awful on purpose. The magic is gone. Birdemic 2 is not so much a sequel, as it is the EXACT same movie but with better sound and camera work. The plot is the same. There are many scenes that are EXACT recreations of scenes in the first movie. In short the movie is, quite obviously, trying to pander to fans of the first movie's unintentional success. It's like watching someone absolutely terrible on American Idol, but then realizing that they're just trying to be terrible on purpose to get attention. It's not the same. The magic is gone.

And, to be honest, decent camera work and sound kind of kills the hilarity. Plus I like Whitney Moore better with long hair...

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Intentionally bad that is about 50% as funny as the first Birdemic

1/10
Author: hunter_kudjo from United States
27 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When you look at it, there really are four elements that make a "funny bad movie" one which we all enjoy: 1.) Bad technical execution (camera angles, audio noise, continuity).

2.) Bad plot that makes no sense.

3.) Stupid unexpected "twists" or actual unexpected crap that's hilariously bizarre.

4.) Bad dialogue.

Movies like The Room, Troll 2, Ninja Justice Style, and Birdemic: S&T all share these qualities. However there is a fifth element I totally missed, that I only realized after watching Birdemic 2:

5.) Unintentional ignorance on behalf of the director and crew.

This ignorance is what makes The Room so special...Wiseau agrees its a black comedy, but originally he thought he had made something incredible. Equally, Nguyen believed he was the reincarnation of Hitchcock in the first Birdemic. You can watch interviews and see that no matter what he's told, he believes that Birdemic is NOT a comedy. Nguyen is possibly the best horrible director in this respect, because of that stone-solid ignorance.

Fast forward to Birdemic 2 in 2013. The four elements are all still there, but at one point in the film, you realize that ignorance is missing. There are so many gags and obvious similarities between the first Birdemic and the sequel, that I began to wonder if Nguyen had really tried at all to continue his Hitchcock ambition in his own vision. Gags such as (((SPOILER))) random nude women, an insane amount of bad continuity (i.e., car ride with Bill and Gloria), hundreds of sequel similarities, and of course the blatant ending, all point to something fishy...no inspiration.

It's essentially the first Birdemic, just in HD, more actors, more blood and CGI, more set locations, and no unintentional "creative" ingnorance from Nguyen.

I enjoyed the stupidity of the film, but not as much, since I feel Nguyen realized he could rake in more money from crowd-sourcing by just making a very similar bad movie. Yet again in several interviews, he explains how amazed he is that showings for Birdemic sold out. Nguyen actually makes more money than he ever dreamed of via theater showings and crowd-sourcing for the second film. Why try a different path for success, *Executive producer whispers in ear*, when the one you've got works? On the bright-side, the essential dialogue script must be Nguyen's own genius: obviously showing his struggle with English, same weird phrasing in conversations, and yet AGAIN with plot, no explanation as to why the Birds always leave for no reason. Most every spoken line I enjoyed much more than the same old gags on screen.

In the end, yeah, you should probably see this if you're a bad movie fan...but I look forward to Nguyen's next piece of ORIGINAL work that will undoubtedly be unintentionally terrible. Perhaps that's what the money from this one will go towards. :)

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A cinematic masterpiece

10/10
Author: Max Harper from london
13 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A beautifully constructed crap-fest by visionary idiot James Nguyen. With more continuity errors and awful sex scenes than the room. I would recommend this to a friend if I hated them and they had a spare pair of pants. To say this is so bad it's good would be an insult to directors everywhere. My favourite actor was the cameraman in the motel sex scene looking on and probably thinking "WHAT AM I DOING?" And also the boom Mic gave a wonderful performance in blocking out the camera so I didn't have to see the film. The film is also full of pretentious preachy messages about global warming, so much so that you could probably make a drinking game every time they mention it or check to see if a blood covered corpse is still alive. Aside from the ending my favourite part was the topless women attacking birds with towels, they actually put on a decent performance by porn standards. Another interesting factor is how the film promotes itself with references to how indie cinema is better than Hollywood, it backfires and assures me that I never want to see an indie film again. Overall it is a well crafted defecation on cinema. 10 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

As bad as the first "Birdemic" movie...

1/10
Author: Paul Magne Haakonsen from Denmark
20 May 2014

The first "Birdemic" movie was horrible, and while "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection" definitely had a major step up in production value, editing and sound, then it was still a complete waste of time.

Much similar to the first movie, the storyline is laughable and unfathomably stupid. Prehistoric vultures and eagles emerge from tar pits in Hollywood and start a murderous killing spree.

Right, well that was basically the storyline, nothing impressive here, and noting believable.

But wait, it gets better. The birds were equally horribly animated as in the previous movie, giving the audience a laugh at how awful the CGI is, and not being even remotely believable for one second. And while we are on the birds, then I was impressed with how they exploded in a red mist when they were shot by guns, but also how they never left behind any dead bird bodies as they died, and most impressively the fact that they could sound like diving airplanes and explode in a horribly CGI animated column of fire when the birds struck a solid surface.

The people in the movie were definitely using proper Hollywood guns, because they never reloaded their guns and apparently had infinite amounts of bullets in the magazines. It was just so bad to witness.

But it wasn't just all birds in the movie, no... There was also a complete and utterly horribly animated jellyfish that was attacking a pair of kicking legs, that was supposed to be underwater. I use the word "supposed" here, because that scene was so fake in every aspect that my eyes almost started to bleed. And to top it off, there were these laughable surfacing air bubbles sounds. Not even a dead person would be fooled into thinking that it was for a second underwater.

And as if badly animated jellyfish wasn't enough, then there suddenly were zombies in the movie as well. Are you kidding me? Zombies? And they were in the movie for about less than 5 minutes.

I didn't know that dead people still breathed, but I was proved wrong. Pay attention to a guy in dark clothes who dies on a street somewhere around the middle of the movie; during a close up on him you can clearly see the chest heaving as he breathes.

If you have had the misfortune of suffering through the first "Birdemic" movie, then you are in for the same kind of wooden acting, horrible script and equally poorly executed dialogue in "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection". And not even the actors and actresses believed they were being attacked by these poorly animated birds.

I am at least giving the movie a thumbs up for the major step up in the editing, sound and production value in general, but it didn't add anything to increase the enjoyment of this movie. As such, "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection" scores a mere 1 out of 10 stars, just as the previous movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Still not as bad as Actium Maximus

2/10
Author: boots_mcg from Canada
23 March 2015

This movie was poorly thought out, badly executed, and terribly acted. The cast was bored, the crew was incompetent and they recycled the plot of and characters (including bridge scientist and Tree Hugger) which I guess is green...

Having said that, the 'special' effects are less 'special' than the original. The CGI birds occasionally interact with the world around them and are not fixed to the spastic camera. Also the driving scene has been replaced with a somewhat shorter swagger walk scene.

This is not a movie to watch sober, or alone. I spent so much time correcting my typos. This movie is still not as bad as Actium Maximus: Alien Dinosaur Wars.

The existence of Actium Maximus is the one reason this movie got 2/10... We have seen rock bottom and this is not it.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

The same bulls**t all over again…

1/10
Author: swedzin from Deadwood
9 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hey, kids! Guess what? Our favorite worst director is back! James "The Crazy Guy" Nguyen is back in town with the sequel of the most shockingly stupid film "Birdemic" called "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection". And guess what? This one is amazingly bad too and it's not far away from the first one. It's basically the same story all over again, but the birds appeared in kind of… different way… James Nguyen… probably the guy who suffers from some mental disease… he still thinks, even today… that he made a big hit film! More like… big hit failure. Please… don't finance him anymore, whenever you see Nguyen on the doorway of your studio, don't open… or run! I won't deny that I had a good time watching 'Birdemics' with my friends, but, it's time to stop this…

OK, now let's dive into the film. Check out the names of the studios… "Chill" and "I got the fish movies"… oh… the good old names for movie studio… you know "The Devil's Testicle Movies", "Sugar Pimple Pictures" and so on… Again, you don't know… are you watching documentary or a porn? Or a documentary about making porn. There's nothing much to say, except that is pretty much same as the first film, we have some new characters and we a have a bunch of old ones from the first one. Alan Bagh (or as I like to call him, the actor of steel, because he gave us the most chilling and the most unemotional, inhuman performance, I still think that he is a robot! Programmed by Nguyen!) and Whitney Moore (the girl with the plastic performance, but here… she looked kind of like she didn't have a proper sleep for a few days… I think that she was bored, quite uninterested in her performance) are here! Yep, Rod and Nathalie are here, and… they obviously do not remember anything about the events from the first film… They didn't say anything, literally nothing about the first film. Like it never happened! What a hell?! The two new characters are Bill and Gloria. Bill is played by Thomas Favaloro, this guy's acting is like… well, he looks like a handsome, retarded tool. Acting is zero. Gloria is played by Chelsea Tumbo, acting is silly, her character (like all of them, actually) is dumb, she was just a dumb, beautiful mannequin. The first part of the movie, before the bird attack, the entire plot revolves mostly around them… so what about Rod and Nathalie? What is their purpose here? To compete? What!? We also have Dr. Johns, again on the bridge… explaining something about eagles in prehistoric times… I say 'something' because I couldn't hear him properly, because audio is freakin' low… the movie is like a video game, you need to set voice audio little higher… for f**k sake… The tree hugger is also here, and he found his mate, he looks even creepier here, with his Crispin Glover face… and still gives the same explanation about global warming… oh for f**k sake… again the environment message… because of this film… I just want to kill every bird in the world and cut all the trees… with fire and incendiary bombs! Nathalie's mother Nancy is also back, played by the same actress… and we didn't hear anything about her in the first film, after the bird attack, did she died, did she hide and survive, she come out of nowhere, without any explanation… I mean… characters in this film are living by some porn logic… only without fuc**ng… And the character of Bill Stone is also here (the guy who says "for a billion dollars in the first film") and plays a movie producer, by the same name, his character in the first film was a… director of the firm in which Rod worked, or something like that… and somehow… these characters… they are just magical! So unusual! So… dumb.

So… the story is pretty much the same… Bill and Gloria are our new characters and they are getting to know each other better, they date, they enjoy, they have sex… blah blah, and after that …the birds attack. Always after sex. Which makes me wonder… Were Nathalie and Gloria virgins? Because after the sex scenes in the first and in this film… the birds attack… it somehow gives me this idea that they were virgins… and remember how in some old films, the leading virgin girl is not supposed to be hurt… but here… the birds waited for that intimate moment and they attacked. OK, but that is just a funny idea… forget what I said. Then we have an unexplained 'red rain', or maybe blood rain that somehow resurrect caveman and cave woman to do… nothing. Absolutely nothing. We also have zombies! Zombies! Yeah, why the f**k not?! Obviously, Nguyen is a fan of "Walking Dead"… well, being the most popular zombie drama at this moment. So, it's just the amazing ride through the film… Lord, have mercy… the budget was just incy wincy bigger than before, but it was poorly used again… poor audio, poor home camera, poor script… the CGI… oh, see the film if you want to know what I am talking about. My favorite scene is jumbo jellyfish scene… that girl… that was definitely a porn actress… her manners, oh, they were so porn like, I expected a good hardcore f**k on the beach.

So, here you go… the movie is just unexplained, mental adventure, and I suggest you get high or drunk, or both before watching it. The only positive thing about this film and the first one… it can make you laugh. And remember, laughter is a very healthy thing.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

I wish I could vote negative!

1/10
Author: mikey-242-435767
22 November 2014

One of the actresses says it: "Bill, you're a terrible shot". They fire and fire and fire and fire and fire and don't hit a single bird for the longest time. And this is inside a closed building. How did these huge birds get inside the building. And why in the world would any of these people, shooting a movie, have guns? And MULTIPLE of the people standing around had guns. And let's wave an umbrella at them. That will help. And when they hit the birds, they disintegrate! The just blow up without leaving any blood of bodies hanging around.

That's just one small bit of a horrible movie. Shy in the world is there no negative rating on this site. The birds just hover. They don't attack anyone. Just hover and seem mean but never dive down and do anything. Oh, wait, they figured out now to dive now. Evolution in action!! Oh, here's an idea, let's use Ju Jutsu on them.

This is so bad it is not even good. The birds are still flying but they just stop shooting and the birds disappear. Here's an idea. Don't shoot and they will disappear in the first place.

How awful. Really a waste of time unless you want a travelogue of the Universal back lot.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

If you need a reason to live, this is it

Author: rebecca_rinehart
25 November 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Before watching this movie, I felt empty. I lived a boring life day after day... Until I found this movie. The banging cavemen carved a mental imagine into my mind that will never be healed. This movie made me feel something. Love. This movie saved me. A solid 10/10. Have you ever felt neglected? Scared? Hurt? Well this movie is here to comfort you. You go on an emotional journey with these horribly developed characters. By the end of it, you feel renewed. You feel young. Have you ever felt self-hatred? This movie will make you LOVE yourself because this is just so bad there is nothing good about this entire train wreck.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Yep... They did it!

1/10
Author: Spooneads .
3 October 2014

Birdemic was an absolutely terrible film! Some people consider it to be so terrible that it's kind of fascinating in its own special way. No one expected a sequel, especially considering how poorly received the movie was and how preachy it was. But, with the compelling box art this movie got, and the $40,000,000 budget, you've got to think, they could make this work! It might actually be decent! But no. This movie... managed to be WORSE than the first one! I wasn't aware this was possible but hey, I guess if you give it your all, anything can end up being absolutely diabolical. And that's exactly what they did! With this movie's huge budget, how they didn't seem to learn or improve on ANYTHING, I can only assume that this was done purposely bad. The first birdemic movie was cute, a failed attempt at an amateur movie which you're just... fascinated by. However, Birdemic 2... has no excuse. This is just... sad.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

This movie is not worth the 3.99 to watch it.

1/10
Author: Jarrod Halpern
22 March 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is really not worth the 3.99 you have to pay to watch it legally. There are points where it seems like James Nguyen is just trying to get people to watch it by desperately throwing in pointless nudity, zombies, and cavemen. The audio HAS improved since the first movie, but it still sounds like IPhone 3g audio at times. The signs on buildings are blurred out in many scenes, and it just seems like a very low quality film. You can't just take a bunch of 5 dollar props, a few clips from the internet, and some CGI birds you used in your last movie and throw it all together. The budget just cannot be blamed for this abomination. It is fun to make fun of and to mock. I barely got through the first 10 minutes without laughing at the mockery of a movie this is.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history