Achoo42
I tried watching it for free on Youtube and I still feel like I got ripped off. Let's start with the highs: None. This is not a "so bad it's good" movie like the first Birdemic. It's a "so bad it's bad" movie.Lows: Everyhing. All the unintentional mistakes from Birdemic 1 are now intentional in Birdemic 2. This proves just how much of a moron James Nguyen is. You can't expect to have the same level of charm by intentionally repeating your mistakes. It was funny the first time, from the terrible audio, to the coat hangers, to the idiotic birds, that had a level of humor and charm to it that you just can't repeat. I hate this movie with a passion. I loved Birdemic 1. 2 just ruined the franchise for me. Verdict: The worst movie I've seen all year. Definitely on my top 10 most hated list. This is absolute garbage. Get Birdemic 1, Trolls 2, The Room, whatever, just stay clear of this movie.
MaximumMadness
A few years ago, director James Nguyen's infamous "Birdemic: Shock and Terror" swept popular culture. (Well, at least in some circles) An attempt to emulate films like Hitchcock's "The Birds" whilst delivering a contrived environmental message, "Birdemic" became an icon in the word of "so bad, it's good" entertainment. (You know, those films that are so dreadful, they become unintentionally entertaining and hilarious) With it's bizarrely poor direction, robotic acting, laughable production values and special effects, and an almost painful script, it was almost literally a perfect storm of awfulness. And yet it was so... so... funny!So when I heard that Nguyen was working on a follow-up, I became excited. I was hyped to see more of the trademark awfulness that has plagued all of Nguyen's work. But then I realized something: The first film had become iconic. And it was clear that James Nguyen understood it's appeal was related to how unintentionally goofy it was. I quickly understood that this follow up was likely going to be TRYING to be bad. It was going to make an intentional effort to be silly and of a poor quality. And that almost never works. You just usually can't re-catch that lightning-in-a-bottle if you're trying too hard with the follow-up.But I gave this film a chance. And I am happy to report that for the most part, despite it's self-referential nature and obvious self- awareness, this film still does more-or-less deliver the chuckles and belly-laughs that the first supplied. Albeit, not as often and not as heartily.We follow a group of four leads, primarily focusing on Bill (Thomas Favaloro), a Hollywood director trying to make his big comeback after his second film failed to live up to the heights of his first effort. With the financial help of Rod (Alan Bagh) and Nathalie (Whitney Moore), two returning characters from the original film, he is able to move forward with his dream project, "Sunset Dreams." He soon meets Gloria (Chelsea Turnbo), an attractive waitress and struggling actress, and is smitten with her. After casting her in the lead roll of his film and finally consummating a romantic relationship, Bill, Gloria, Rod and Whitney suddenly find themselves under the attack of a new Birdemic. But this time, it's different. The birds are actually ancient, pre- historic birds brought back to life by a toxic red rain (presumably caused by pollution)... And they aren't alone. The same rain has also managed to raise the dead, supplying zombies and other obstacles for our protagonists.This is honestly a hard film to analyze in many ways. I can't say for sure which of the performances are genuinely good or bad, due to the fact that the production is self-aware, and thus many of the actors are in on the joke this time. The same applies to the effects and writing- it's just too hard to say which scenes were done seriously, and which were done intentionally tongue-in-cheek. Whereas the first film was a clear effort to make a decent film that just backfired spectacularly, this one alternates between trying to be an honest sequel, and trying to be a piece of self-parody from scene to scene. (Although I do believe that more often than not, it's intentionally self-aware.)All I can say is that analyzing the performances and the various aspects of the production is a moot point here. Instead, I have to speak of this film in broader strokes.And in the broadest sense, I do think this sequel fundamentally works. Despite its self-awareness, which does rob a bit from the laughs, there is still an overabundant sense of incompetence that lends a lot of humor. And I have to be honest in admitting that there is a certain charm here in seeing the film make fun of itself and of its predecessor. The original was so joyously bad, that just re-visiting these characters and seeing them point out how silly they are... it just works for me. Though it never is able to reach the sheer brilliance of the first film, nor is it able to match the tremendous laughs it supplied... this sequel does do a decent, serviceable job of giving fans of the original more of what they want. It may not be perfect, but by god, this movie is TRYING. It wants to entertain fans. It wants you to love it. It wants audiences to laugh. And I admire that. Even when this film wasn't working, I was still grinning, because this... film... tries.And if you want me to be REALLY honest... After seeing this, I hope we will one day get a "Birdemic 3."I am giving "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection" a pretty-good 7 out of 10 for its entertainment value. Grab a hanger for protection, pop it in with some friends, and get ready to chuckle!
