578. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection (2013)

0.9 Much better! But still terrible...
  • Acting 1.3
  • Directing 0.0
  • Story 1.3
  • User Ratings (0 Votes) 0

Starring: Alan Bagh, Whitney Moore, Thomas Favaloro

Director: James Nguyen

Running Time: 90 mins

Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is an American film and the unfortunate sequel to Birdemic: Shock And Terror. Here, the platoon of evil birds move from a small town to performing an all-out attack on Hollywood, threatening the lives of every single person in the city…

Well, for a film that really didn’t need a sequel, here’s the sequel. With some budgetary enhancements spent on upgrading from 5 year old’s drawings of 2D birds to some by a 6 year old, and perhaps some acting lessons, this is definitely better, but it’s still appallingly bad.

Let’s just briefly talk about the improvements from Shock And Terror. Obviously, the ‘CGI’ has improved immensely, while there’s better acting, less environmental propaganda, and some use of decent sound editing that doesn’t make this a better story, but just a higher quality film.

That’s pretty much it, because the rest of this was just terrible. In comparison to its infamous predecessor, which had a serious and enthusiastic agenda towards its message and concept, this film is much more of a ‘comedy’ than the first.

But MY GOD does this fall flat on its face while trying to do some comedy. You’ve got some more upbeat acting and dialogue, which does take away an atmosphere of frustration while watching this, however, it’s just NOT FUNNY.

It attempts to take the mick out of its predecessor for being so god-awfully bad, however there are genuine attempts to be funny in this film, and they don’t work! One-liners that make no sense, characters that are on screen for only 4 seconds, and Birdemic in-jokes that are just so unfunny it’s depressing.

Now, there comes one element of this film where it is actually worse than Shock And Terror. In the first film, it’s a genuine attempt at making a proper film, but the fact that it’s so bad actually shocks you as the viewer to watch it, meaning that there is some degree of emotion and response you get when watching the first.

However, this is just dull. Because it’s now actually trying to be deliberately bad, you lose a certain sense of enthusiasm that the first film seemed to subtly have, and seeing as you immediately notice that it is pretty much a sell-out, it’s not a nice film to watch, and due to its incredibly poor story, it inspires no response whatsoever, and is therefore horrifically dull, so that’s why it gets a 0.9.


About Author

The Mad Movie Man, AKA Anthony Cullen, writes articles and reviews about movies and the world of cinema. Since January 1st, 2013, he has watched and reviewed a movie every day. This is the blog dedicated to the project: www.madmovieman.com