I'm throwing down the gauntlet on this movie because I have no time whatsoever to be elegant. With that being said, we've seen enough progress already in cinematic history of the horror franchise, sequel, trilogy, and the more recent and popular prequel...but how far are movie-making executives willing to go to cash in on that final buck that was bled dry from a previously established title?
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is a straight to DVD release. Its purpose is to unveil the back-story of what occurred before the events unfolded in 2007's, The Messengers. We'll choose to ignore the obvious title discrepancies because getting on that topic could result in an hour long discussion.
To describe the plot of the film is as such: John Rollins and his family live on a farm during seemingly stressful times as their harvest of corn for the year may not meet their expectations. John decides to seek out a permanent solution to ward off a pesky murder of crows as he uncovers an old scarecrow in the barn from the previous owner. Once planted firmly in the middle of his corn field, strange occurrences take place as a result of the scarecrow. As John struggles with his own sanity a considerable distance is drawn between him and his family.
As I mentioned earlier, the title of this movie is confusing. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is the prequel to The Messengers. John Rollins is a character who appears in both movies but his role in The Messengers makes absolutely no sense at all in relation to Messengers 2. I almost feel like I've given this review a thousand times before because I always find myself ranting and raving. Maybe if I scream loud enough the people located in some backwoods shack in Idaho can hear me: YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE A SEQUEL, THREE-QUEL, OR PREQUEL ABOUT AN EXISTING FILM OF THE SAME NAME AND COMPLETELY IGNORE ANYTHING THAT MAY PERTAIN TO SAID MOVIE! The Messengers wasn't even about scarecrows! So we're honestly expected to believe that John Rollins has an epic duel with a scarecrow at the end of Messengers 2, walks off into the sunset with his family (you know, since this is serves as a prequel) and by the beginning of The Messengers he's gone stark raving mad and starts murdering people? NO. I refuse to accept this. No.
I won't bother revealing any more about the plot or what happens at the end but I'm sure you can draw your own conclusion. The acting was sub- par, there was little tension, no atmosphere, no thrills or scares, and most importantly, NO RELEVANCE. I'm actually in the process of working on a new script right now for the pre-prequel of the three-qual of The Messengers. I decided to drop the name altogether, add some dinosaurs, a gorilla, and some space marines all nestled safely under the umbrella of a romantic comedy. I won't bother using a camera to document this phenomenon either, I'll just hand draw it on a DVD-R with a blunt crayon, travel back in time and deliver it in the form of a package to a family located in Louisiana, with a note that states: "Don't open until 2009" then return to present day just in time to purchase it from one of their descendants just so I can have the pleasure of burning it for my own personal enjoyment.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is a straight to DVD release. Its purpose is to unveil the back-story of what occurred before the events unfolded in 2007's, The Messengers. We'll choose to ignore the obvious title discrepancies because getting on that topic could result in an hour long discussion.
To describe the plot of the film is as such: John Rollins and his family live on a farm during seemingly stressful times as their harvest of corn for the year may not meet their expectations. John decides to seek out a permanent solution to ward off a pesky murder of crows as he uncovers an old scarecrow in the barn from the previous owner. Once planted firmly in the middle of his corn field, strange occurrences take place as a result of the scarecrow. As John struggles with his own sanity a considerable distance is drawn between him and his family.
As I mentioned earlier, the title of this movie is confusing. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is the prequel to The Messengers. John Rollins is a character who appears in both movies but his role in The Messengers makes absolutely no sense at all in relation to Messengers 2. I almost feel like I've given this review a thousand times before because I always find myself ranting and raving. Maybe if I scream loud enough the people located in some backwoods shack in Idaho can hear me: YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE A SEQUEL, THREE-QUEL, OR PREQUEL ABOUT AN EXISTING FILM OF THE SAME NAME AND COMPLETELY IGNORE ANYTHING THAT MAY PERTAIN TO SAID MOVIE! The Messengers wasn't even about scarecrows! So we're honestly expected to believe that John Rollins has an epic duel with a scarecrow at the end of Messengers 2, walks off into the sunset with his family (you know, since this is serves as a prequel) and by the beginning of The Messengers he's gone stark raving mad and starts murdering people? NO. I refuse to accept this. No.
I won't bother revealing any more about the plot or what happens at the end but I'm sure you can draw your own conclusion. The acting was sub- par, there was little tension, no atmosphere, no thrills or scares, and most importantly, NO RELEVANCE. I'm actually in the process of working on a new script right now for the pre-prequel of the three-qual of The Messengers. I decided to drop the name altogether, add some dinosaurs, a gorilla, and some space marines all nestled safely under the umbrella of a romantic comedy. I won't bother using a camera to document this phenomenon either, I'll just hand draw it on a DVD-R with a blunt crayon, travel back in time and deliver it in the form of a package to a family located in Louisiana, with a note that states: "Don't open until 2009" then return to present day just in time to purchase it from one of their descendants just so I can have the pleasure of burning it for my own personal enjoyment.