Search - Messengers 2: The Scarecrow on DVD

James B. (wandersoul73) from LINDALE, TX
Reviewed on 7/12/2009...

Wow, this one was WAY better than the 1st film! Hopefully if they make more movies they will stay this path.

1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.

Somebody Tell Me What Was the Message for "Messengers 2?"

RDU | Knoxville, TN United States | 08/02/2009

(1 out of 5 stars)

"Before you waste your time watching this movie, try watching the original "Messengers I" film. The original movie had a pretty good plot with a decent ending. More importantly, "Messengers I" was set up whereby the original family who first owned the house that was bought by the film's main characters had been murdered (don't worry, this shouldn't be a spoiler in terms of ruining the first film if you have never seen it). "Messengers II" is supposed to be a prequel that reveals the history of what happened to the original family who died in the house years before the current family of "Messengers I" ever moved in.

"Messengers II" is mainly about a farmer named John Rollins, who was played by Norman Reedus. Reedus' overall performance as John was pretty good and I found his character to be quite relatable. The film, however, first appears to focus on his soon approaching psychological meltdown after struggling to keep his wife and family together, creating a productive crop when drought and crows destroy everything in sight, and retaining his house and land before it is seized.

Several clues hinting to John's mental deterioration are scattered throughout the film (strange people continually popping up who only he can see), especially with the introduction of a creepy scarecrow that John mysteriously discovers in his barn that continues to disappear and reappear after horrible things occur to the people with whom John interacts. Then after nearly two hours the plot unfolds and the ending answers none of the clues concerning his seemingly imaginary companions or his failing mental state, leaving the viewer confused and incredibly agitated at having spent so much time waiting for the plot to unravel. More importantly, the ending left me particularly confused as to how John Rollins' family ended up LIVING "happily ever after" when they clearly were supposed to be the DEAD Rollins family of the first movie "Messengers I." Yes. I must say that the inexplicable discontinuity between the two films was my greatest disappointment. At the end of the day, I recommend viewers avoid this straight-to-DVD flick and just stick with the original film.



"

Beginning of the end of the probablility of you watching thi

C. Sawin | TX | 07/22/2009

(2 out of 5 stars)

"In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.

The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.

The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.

Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD."

You Call That a Corn Field?

Zephyr | unemployment line | 10/25/2009

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I mean, really! That field should just go off forever in every direction but it really looks like some nasty two acre garden. Also, I realize that EVERY single movie now has to feature people who are younger than thirty since it's impossible to believe that anyone over the age of thirty could possibly contribute to society but I have a hard time believing that the wife is old enough to have given birth to that teenager (popped her out at the age of 14? I guess...) and the sheriff is, oh, what do you think, maybe twenty? Are there still sharecroppers? If a nearby sharecropper decided to pull off her top and pour water all over her naked torso, do you think you would even be anywhere to actually see it, if your farm was at least one or two quarters large? What? There's nudity? Yeah, a little bit, but not even enough to merit a rental, so maybe you ought to just go hang out by the local corn field, and one day, she'll come along.
"