I enjoyed both Messengers and Messengers 2 (although the prequel could've contained less nudity and sex). In my opinion, the original is much better and worthy of watching more than once, unlike its prequel. I came here in search of an explanation of what happens between the two movies (unsuccessfully). Because so many reviewers said the two movies contradicted each other, I created an account so I could clarify.
Messengers 2 doesn't necessarily NOT connect to The Messengers. At the end of the movie, we get the sense that they're not going to live happily ever after because the scarecrow, although in pieces, is returned to the room we found him in. I'm assuming the scarecrow comes back, the dad goes crazy, kills his family when they try to leave, and then somehow gets rid of the scarecrow before moving. I do wish there was more of an explanation. Maybe they were leaving room for a sequel to the prequel? However, it is inconsistent in the fact that all the actors are different, not to mention I feel like all the deaths would've been mentioned when the daughter in the original was asking about the family that lived in the house before.
Messengers 2 doesn't necessarily NOT connect to The Messengers. At the end of the movie, we get the sense that they're not going to live happily ever after because the scarecrow, although in pieces, is returned to the room we found him in. I'm assuming the scarecrow comes back, the dad goes crazy, kills his family when they try to leave, and then somehow gets rid of the scarecrow before moving. I do wish there was more of an explanation. Maybe they were leaving room for a sequel to the prequel? However, it is inconsistent in the fact that all the actors are different, not to mention I feel like all the deaths would've been mentioned when the daughter in the original was asking about the family that lived in the house before.