Leofwine_draca
MESSENGERS 2: THE SCARECROW is an unconnected sequel to the first movie featuring a different story and a different cast. In this one, a down-on-his-luck farmer (played by THE WALKING DEAD actor Norman Reedus) discovers a weird old scarecrow in his barn and uses it to get rid of the crows devouring his sweetcorn. He soon finds out that the scarecrow has the power to bring luck to his farm and family, but inevitably there's a price to pay as well.Much of the interest in this film lies in the presence of Reedus shortly before he became a cult favourite after starring in THE WALKING DEAD. Reedus crafts a likable character and is given plenty of screen time, which is great for fans; his acting is also very good, certainly better than anyone else in the film.In other respects, MESSENGERS 2: THE SCARECROW is spooky rather than outright frightening. The plot mixes together monster action with inexplicable deaths and a foreboding atmosphere. Although the Pang brothers weren't involved with this film, as a whole the movie is well made and enjoyable. There's something about rural farmsteads which make them a great setting for horror movies and once again the creepy farm brings this film to life.
krycek19
The first rule of a prequel is that the audience in most cases know the story already, so you cannot change the story. The second rule is that you cannot change the ending. Because the audience knows this too. The third rule is that you have to make it really interesting because we as an audience already know the story and know exactly what to expect.This dumb prequel directed by a guy from my country, I'm ashamed to admit, breaks all of the rules mentioned above.First off all why didn't they get John Corbett from The Messengers to reprise his role instead of Norman Reedus who is not a very good actor?? Why call the prequel The Messengers 2 when there are no ghosts in this movie?? The messengers in the original was the ghosts of John Rollins dead family. The family that he killed. Clearly because he lost his mind when they were about to leave him.But this prequel completely ignores that fact. Instead they make it about a supernatural evil scarecrow that kills people. And in the end John saves his family and destroys the scarecrow and they live happily ever after.It's an insult. Had they made the scarecrow something John simply imagined and John being insane and being the real killer it might have been interesting. Instead we get a badly made CGI-scarecrow so the teen audience can get a little bit of gore and action in and a happy ending, even though it didn't end that way at all. And the writers apparently could not make up their minds as to whether John was simply insane or the scarecrow being alive.The worst part about this prequel is that it's not scary at all. The original was genuinely scary. This is just boring.
Michael-d-duncan
I didn't expect to enjoy this flick. Typically, creature feature + STV = mildly entertaining dung heap. However this film was surprisingly good. Not a gore fest but a few nasty bits. This is more of a suspense thriller. It reminds me of the first Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street. They wanted to scare you not just gross you out. This film was a lot like that.The overall tone was creepy, I watched it on my computer on a Tuesday morning and was enthralled. It had some really creepy moments and it keeps you guessing until the end if this is just a plum crazy farmer, or a supernatural evil.I totally recommend this movie. It has nothing to do with the first Messengers which is disappointing although not horrible, but it captures the same kind of classic horror movie genre the first one did.
JoeB131
Another direct to DVD film to fill the shelves of Blockbuster, this film wasn't THAT bad. It also wasn't that good.The plot is that a down on his luck farmer is getting it from all sides. The bank wants to foreclose on his farm, the old friend from high school is making moves on the wife, and even the damned crows are eating your corn and pooping on it... The poor guy can't get a break, until he finds the scarecrow. Well, it's the best scarecrow ever, because not only does it kill the crows, but the banker and the interloper die in amusingly ironic ways as well...Well, you know how these things always go. Some diabolical force (never really specified) is behind the scarecrow, and he'll want your loved ones, too. (Don't they always?) Still, the movie has some genuine thrills, as well as being fairly interesting as a character study. (The farmer does this Faustian bargain, but he doesn't recoil away from it right away.)Certainly a lot better than most of the usual "bottle of ketchup" horror films who just think gore and cheap thrills make these movies work.
AD
