I found the film Messengers 2: The Scarecrow, not to be as good as the first film, It did have a lot of nice scenery in the film. I did think that it was just as creepy as the original, It is about a farmer called John Rollins(Norman Reedus) John's corn crop is being eaten up by a swarm of crows. While John is going through the barn he finds an old scarecrow is found and John thinks it may scare away the crows. The next morning his cornfield is covered with dead crows. This film had quite a supernatural and a creepy kind of feel to it which made it a good film. Although i did think the actors were far better from the first movie. 4/10
33 Reviews
Low grade farm based horror movie
dimarinc11 May 2012
The Messengers 2 is a very prototypical low grade horror sequel. These types of movie never feature the stars that made the first and try to capture the mood of the first without stepping on it's toes too much. The idea would be to elaborate on the parts that worked and avoid the parts that didn't. Unfortunately most of them do the opposite and this entry is no different.
As a full movie this isn't as terrible as some horror movies you'll see out there. There are a few interesting ideas and twists but not many. The movie is also acted well if not lacklusterly under toned.
The concept of being scared of the scarecrow just didn't work for me. It never really seemed like anything other than an inanimate object. The movie kind of crawled along and was predictable as well. There was too much emphasis on the farm (which albeit is a key theme) and not enough focus on the horror. The first movie was good because it mixed the farm setting with an inherited horror and human interaction. This movie left the interaction out and elaborated on the farm.
I would really only recommend this movie to farm lovers. If you loved the first movie then it's worth a watch but you'll likely be disappointed.
As a full movie this isn't as terrible as some horror movies you'll see out there. There are a few interesting ideas and twists but not many. The movie is also acted well if not lacklusterly under toned.
The concept of being scared of the scarecrow just didn't work for me. It never really seemed like anything other than an inanimate object. The movie kind of crawled along and was predictable as well. There was too much emphasis on the farm (which albeit is a key theme) and not enough focus on the horror. The first movie was good because it mixed the farm setting with an inherited horror and human interaction. This movie left the interaction out and elaborated on the farm.
I would really only recommend this movie to farm lovers. If you loved the first movie then it's worth a watch but you'll likely be disappointed.
Alright.
stormofwar21 July 2009
You more of less have to know what your getting into with this film.
To make a long story short, Randy is a down on his luck farmer. He finds and puts up a scarecrow, then things start to go his way, but people wind up dying.
The story was surprisingly good for a b-class flick, and the acting was decent as well. Minus a few holes in the plot, the premise is good. I can't really complain about the technical aspects of the film. There is enough blood to satisfy those looking for it, and enough twists to make you nod in approval.
This won't win any awards, nor will it go down in the annals of Worst 100 (if it does, I will be extremely disappointed). More of less, it's an average flick with just enough story to keep you interested.
5/10 - overall, could pass for a theater release, despite being direct to video. Certainly better then 2/3'rds of the crap in the theaters now-a-days.
To make a long story short, Randy is a down on his luck farmer. He finds and puts up a scarecrow, then things start to go his way, but people wind up dying.
The story was surprisingly good for a b-class flick, and the acting was decent as well. Minus a few holes in the plot, the premise is good. I can't really complain about the technical aspects of the film. There is enough blood to satisfy those looking for it, and enough twists to make you nod in approval.
This won't win any awards, nor will it go down in the annals of Worst 100 (if it does, I will be extremely disappointed). More of less, it's an average flick with just enough story to keep you interested.
5/10 - overall, could pass for a theater release, despite being direct to video. Certainly better then 2/3'rds of the crap in the theaters now-a-days.
Prequel that does not make any sense
krycek1916 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Pathetic.
dagonseve31 July 2009
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.
What??? No seriously, WHAT??????
Systreco1 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
OK, firstly, why on earth and how on earth did this movie get the title "Messengers 2"???? It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the original movie, except for the fact they live in a house on a farm! Basically, you have a family on a farm who are hard up for cash and fighting! The dad decides to stick a scarecrow (that he found in the barn) into the crop, in the hope of saving some corn! He does this against his son's wishes (even though we never find out why)! The scarecrow then takes it upon himself to reap vengeance on all that crosses the dad! Including the crows! This movie was ridiculous! The original Messengers was creepy and had a good story! This is just laughable! AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
Disappointed.
abbey-rowe-464-5831941 September 2012
I am somewhat disappointed with this film. I felt it was not as captivating or well-made as the first Messengers movie. It has random nude scenes of which I found were completely irrelevant to the movies storyline, perhaps a change in directors from the first movie to the second has done this.
However, I do find that actors in it are very good. There is no cliché high pitched screaming coming from the women which is a plus. On the horror scale, this movie rates very low in my eyes.
Overall I wouldn't recommend watching this, watch the first movie instead and leave it at that!
However, I do find that actors in it are very good. There is no cliché high pitched screaming coming from the women which is a plus. On the horror scale, this movie rates very low in my eyes.
Overall I wouldn't recommend watching this, watch the first movie instead and leave it at that!
boooooooring
markv-2313 August 2009
With a movie being an hour and thirty four minutes long I like more horror action than just within the last ten minutes of the movie. Yes building up characters in a movie is very essential, but if it is the entire movie, it's not worth watching. I love horror movies, but give me a break. If you have time to kill or you just wanna see it so you can say you did, then go ahead. If you are looking for a movie with an interesting storyline, suspenseful horror, or any other reason to watch a good horror flick then this one is not for you. Save your money and borrow a copy from a friend. It's not even worth the rental fee. I feel as though I have lost I.Q. points just watching this.
Crap
utgard1411 May 2014
Tired, predictable, and dull for stretches. It's never scary or suspenseful. The acting is weak, with Norman Reedus trying his best as the lead character but he's just woefully miscast here. He's about as believable as a farmer as he would be as the King of England. His son in the movie is played by an annoying child actor. Claire Holt plays his daughter in her movie debut. The role isn't great but she's fine in it. The wife character is terrible and there just to service a few clichés. So much of this feels I have seen it before in better movies. On the (very shallow) plus side, Darcy Fowers has a couple of very nice nude scenes. Hey, that's something, right?
Land Is All That Matters
claudio_carvalho28 March 2010
The family man farmer John Rollins (Norman Reedus) is stressed with his financial situation: the crows and the lack of irrigation are destroying his crop of corn; the bank is near closure of his mortgage; he does not have credit to fix the water pump or to buy seeds; and his marriage is in crisis and his wife Mary (Heather Stephens) is giving too much attention to her friend Tommy (Atanas Srebrev). When John accidentally discovers a hidden compartment in the barn, he finds a creepy scarecrow but his son Michael (Laurence Belcher) makes him promise to destroy it. However, his neighbor Jude Weatherby (Richard Riehle) visits him, gives a six-pack of beer to the abstemious John and convinces him to put the scarecrow in the cornfield. Out of the blue, the life of John changes: the crows die; the pump works again irrigating the land; and the banker responsible for the closure has an accident and dies. However, he feels that his land is possessed by something evil that is threatening his beloved family.
"Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" is a good direct-to-video supernatural movie. The story may be not original but is well constructed, with a good screenplay and effective performances of veteran and novice actors and actresses. The conclusion is the weakest part of this decent horror movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Os Mensageiros 2" ("The Messengers 2")
"Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" is a good direct-to-video supernatural movie. The story may be not original but is well constructed, with a good screenplay and effective performances of veteran and novice actors and actresses. The conclusion is the weakest part of this decent horror movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Os Mensageiros 2" ("The Messengers 2")
Skip it!
atinder8 September 2012
I was one few who really liked The Messengers (2007), I thought had some great moment, There were good remember scenes in that movie, the ghost come out of the wall was really creepy.
I know this movie is meant to be prequel about total different story about evil Scarecrow,It' not connected to first movie at all.
I have only seen one other scarecrow movie that was Jeepers Creepers, which is was much better and scary one.
This was my second time I saw this movie, I did not remember much of first watch and I just saw this two days ago, it is very forgettable movie.
I did not all plot of story was really dull, I did not find Scare crow scary at all.
However I liked the little twist they had in the movie which I never saw coming, The ending of the movie felt way to rushed!
Acting was decent from most of cast
3 out of 10
I know this movie is meant to be prequel about total different story about evil Scarecrow,It' not connected to first movie at all.
I have only seen one other scarecrow movie that was Jeepers Creepers, which is was much better and scary one.
This was my second time I saw this movie, I did not remember much of first watch and I just saw this two days ago, it is very forgettable movie.
I did not all plot of story was really dull, I did not find Scare crow scary at all.
However I liked the little twist they had in the movie which I never saw coming, The ending of the movie felt way to rushed!
Acting was decent from most of cast
3 out of 10
In the Classic style...
Michael-d-duncan8 September 2009
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.
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.
Decent horror flick
ozlifter23 July 2009
I'm a huge horror fan, and I tend to watch most dvds I can get my hands on.
This straight to DVD "prequel" of the original film should please most horror fans. It's not a great movie, and you'll likely forget it not long after watching, but it's entertaining enough if your expectations are low.
It has good acting and a big-budget look. I didn't know much about the plot going in, so some of the twists towards the end were a little unexpected for me. It doesn't have much at all to do with the original Messengers.
The plot is a little goofy. But I think it gives this B movie some of its charm.
This straight to DVD "prequel" of the original film should please most horror fans. It's not a great movie, and you'll likely forget it not long after watching, but it's entertaining enough if your expectations are low.
It has good acting and a big-budget look. I didn't know much about the plot going in, so some of the twists towards the end were a little unexpected for me. It doesn't have much at all to do with the original Messengers.
The plot is a little goofy. But I think it gives this B movie some of its charm.
Worse than corn-y
davharr-7702220 September 2018
Whoever produced this movie knows less than nothing about growing corn and how corn should look. Ripe corn is hard and yellow or maybe white. After the rain comes, suddenly the corn that appears as soft unripe corn--like sweet corn you buy in summer--but it is not ripe corn. The implication that this little patch of corn is going to save a family from debt is also absurd. If you're going to have agriculture in a movie, at least get it right.
Reasonable formulaic horror but limited quality
SnoopyStyle17 August 2014
John Rollins (Norman Reedus) is under pressure with his failing family farm. He has his wife Mary (Heather Stephens), daughter Lindsey (Claire Holt) and son Michael (Laurence Belcher). His farm is over-run with crows. He finds a creepy scarecrow in the barn to scare the crows. His son wants him to get rid of it. His new neighbor Jude Weatherby (Richard Riehle) convinces him to put it up. He hears voices. All the crows die. Sleazy banker George Chapman comes with an offer to buy him out. The broken water pump starts working again. The banker dies getting run over by a truck. There seems to be an evil possessing John. He grows more jealous of his wife's friend Tommy.
It's questionable if this is related to the first movie. It's just as well. The first one wasn't any good. This one is a little better. It has some personal drama that's not relying on a cheap reveal. The scarecrow is an old cliché but that's not a problem. I do like Reedus but he doesn't have enough range to project a big creepy change. I like the story in this one slightly better than the original but the production quality is straight-to-video level.
It's questionable if this is related to the first movie. It's just as well. The first one wasn't any good. This one is a little better. It has some personal drama that's not relying on a cheap reveal. The scarecrow is an old cliché but that's not a problem. I do like Reedus but he doesn't have enough range to project a big creepy change. I like the story in this one slightly better than the original but the production quality is straight-to-video level.
the last part completely ruins the movie (10 main actors recitation)
JamesRutland14 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
OK I begun to see this movie without any expectation after reading many reviews, so I noted that it was simple but very well interpreted by the main actors. *** spoiler *** The story concerns with that strange scarecrow the main character gets from a inter-space of the barn, so strange events begin to happen in order to protect the wheat field: the crows die, the greedy banker dies, the wife suitor dies....and the main character feel voices and presences believing the scarecrow is responsible of those evil events. Two guests are present in the story and the viewer can be intrigued about their strange nature. Are they hallucinations or real spirits? What is their plane? However it seems that their presence depends on the scarecrow. Now the director, and or story-writer, loses one of the best CHANCE TO MAKE THIS MOVIE great. The real reason the 2 guests are intertwined with the scarecrow is not clear.... OK another possibility could be to unveil their importance during the story when the protagonist is clearly pervaded by visions becoming to unveil a possible dark nature. Now the director, and or the story writer, has 2 POSSIBILITY: 1) credible and reasonable; 2) stupid and absurd. The first choice concerns with the possibility that the protagonist is persuaded the scarecrow is responsible of the evil events although he is the scarecrow itself that is his dark nature. The second choice (the choice the director chooses): the scarecrow is the stupid monster who really killed people and animals to protect the field (why?) so to see that stupid creature moving in a clumsy way trying to kill the son of the protagonist after having killed other people.... however the strong boy will eliminate it provided by the farm tractor, he is brave, full of rage and determination making the movie really ridiculous and childish. At this point the movie is completely ruined missing of reality based only on the exaltation and the exhibition of emphasis. There is a scene before the disaster on this movie: the wife intervenes into the barn where her husband is talking with the aforementioned guests discovering that he is talking with none. The viewer begins to think that all that events origins from the mind of the farmer so that he is the killer of an imaginary reality generated into his sick mind (this choice would have been made the movie extraordinary) but that's not the case... unfortunately the scarecrow monster really exists making the movie completely stupid and bizarre. The acting of Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens deserves 10. Heather Stephens makes a real great job by her extraordinary recitation: 10+.
Typical horror slash fest
JoeB1312 August 2009
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.
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.
I don't really get the purpose for the sequel...
SusieSalmonLikeTheFish15 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Basically a farmer is losing his sunflower crops and puts up a freaky scarecrow, which gives him good luck but in return kills off people.
Scarecrow was okay but began to make very little sense. There was a little girl who had absolutely no purpose in the movie, and they tried to cram in as many sex scenes as possible, which was disgusting and tore away from the plot.
I don't recommend you spend your hard-earned money buying this movie, it is a complete waste of time. The original is better, try it instead. Scarecrow had a lot of potential but was trumped with cliché horror elements, perverse scenes and bad acting.
Scarecrow was okay but began to make very little sense. There was a little girl who had absolutely no purpose in the movie, and they tried to cram in as many sex scenes as possible, which was disgusting and tore away from the plot.
I don't recommend you spend your hard-earned money buying this movie, it is a complete waste of time. The original is better, try it instead. Scarecrow had a lot of potential but was trumped with cliché horror elements, perverse scenes and bad acting.
Two things save it, Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens
McQualude24 October 2011
Basically The Shining meets Signs meets Children of the Corn but it's better than it sounds. John Rollins is an out of luck farmer, his corn is diseased, crows are eating what's not, he can't afford to fix his irrigation or buy fertilizer, he's on the outs with his wife and an evil banker is foreclosing on his farm. Then he finds a hideous scarecrow that frightens his son but a new neighbor convinces him to put up. Suddenly his luck changes... the crows die, the corn is healthy, the water pump works, he finds a wad of money and even gets laid. Soon bad things happen to his enemies, his family situation grows worse and he starts to worry about the scarecrow.
On the face of it, M2 isn't a very good movie but two things save it, Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens. Reedus fully develops John Rollins, in the beginning a good Christian, a tad paranoid and an almost broken man. When things improve his confidence and virility grow as do his bad habits with a little nudging from the new neighbor; and finally desperation when the price of success grows too high. Stephens does a very good job in her supporting role as John's wife, Mary Rollins. Between them, they make the movie believable. The filmmakers allow Reedus to act and don't burden him or Stephens with too many lines. For most of the movie, the scarecrow is just a totem but eventually comes to life and the film loses effectiveness. From other reviews I get that M2 doesn't work well as a sequel but I never saw the original. As a standalone, it's worth a watch.
On the face of it, M2 isn't a very good movie but two things save it, Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens. Reedus fully develops John Rollins, in the beginning a good Christian, a tad paranoid and an almost broken man. When things improve his confidence and virility grow as do his bad habits with a little nudging from the new neighbor; and finally desperation when the price of success grows too high. Stephens does a very good job in her supporting role as John's wife, Mary Rollins. Between them, they make the movie believable. The filmmakers allow Reedus to act and don't burden him or Stephens with too many lines. For most of the movie, the scarecrow is just a totem but eventually comes to life and the film loses effectiveness. From other reviews I get that M2 doesn't work well as a sequel but I never saw the original. As a standalone, it's worth a watch.
OK if a bit heavy on the corn fields
graham-tillotson9 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"Now reap your reward! Aaaaahhhhhh! Aaaaahhhhh!" I so wanted the Jump to Conclusions Mat to make an appearance. Good production quality though and the last act picks up the pace nicely. Anyone else have trouble telling the blondes apart?
Moody horror
ctomvelu114 May 2011
Believe it or not, this movie used the script that was originally intended for THE MESSENGERS. Obviously, something went wrong, and it ended up becoming the basis for this sequel. A corn farmer down on his luck finds a creepy old scarecrow hidden away in his barn and puts it up in his dying cornfield, which is plagued by crows and lack of water. The nasty crows soon disappear, and the farm's faulty irrigation system begins working again. Unfortunately, people start dying as well, and the farmer begins to believe the change in fortune is tied to the creepy scarecrow. He attempts to burns it, but ... well, you get the idea. Highly reminiscent of ":Children of the Corn" and any number of previous killer scarecrow-oriented horror flicks, M2 is still eerie enough on its own terms to hold one's attention. Award-winning character actor Norman Reedus plays the haunted farmer, otherwise the cast is nondescript. There are a couple of surprising twists and turns near the end that add to the overall enjoyment of this STV. Moody and atmospheric throughout, M2 is for connoisseurs of intelligent horror, as it can be slow-moving and is definitely not into JASON territory -- at least, not until the grand finale. Enjoy.
Good Husbands Overly Stomped Trampled Hated On Under Shitty Esposas--GHOST HOUSE!
KilRydLoad19 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Yeah, I know that was hilarious--so hilarious I'm willing to take a chance that IMDb won't reject my comment for using the word "shitty." I'm actually in the middle of watching this, and I swear to God, I thought of that acronym from getting up from the couch to going to take a whiz, and my bathroom is a mere ten steps away from my couch. Yes, I improvised that in ten steps, don't everyone clap for me all at once. Yup...I think that pretty much sums up Ghost House Productions. And no, I'm not kidding--first "The Possession," and now we have yet ANOTHER Ghost House Production featuring a good husband getting emasculated by a bitch of a wife. WTF Ghost House?!??? I rent your movies because I wanna watch horror, not watch a good husband get told his best isn't good enough by an emasculating wife. A drunk? Oooooooh, he had two--count 'em TWO--empty beer cans at his feet out of that six pack his wife picked up off of the ground!!!!!! Hey, watch out for this guy!!! Ghost House, take heed, if this is the kind of crap you're going to keep churning out, I'm going to stop watching your movies. "The Possession" review soon to come after my posting time limit expires. I should have reviewed it first, then thought better of it, and then I saw this God-awful emasculation piece that Ghost House--again--was responsible for, and I said to myself, "No...I HAVE to speak out against these two crappy movies." So, regarding this movie...God, where do I begin?
SPOILERS!!!**********************************************************
OK, I mean, seriously, when he's out in the cornfield and his neighbor's wife starts stripping for him and makes the sprinklers turn on so she can get all wet, that's where I lost it, OMG!! And while she's doing that, I'm thinking "Wait a minute...the bank guy that tried to take his farm...didn't the husband tell Mr. Bank Guy he came and asked for a loan for water sprinklers and he turned him down? Oh, wait a minute...the cursed scarecrow provided those water sprinklers! Along with a naked chick taking her top off and getting wet dancing in the sprinklers!" And speaking of his neighbor, nice fake Irish accent! And then the neighbors are there in his barn speaking to him. Then emasculating wife turns on the lights and says, "Who are you speaking to?" And he turns around and they're not there. But the knocked-out cop on the ground whom the neighbors knocked out, oh, she saw him still lying there on the ground, he was real! Perfect for turning his emasculating wife further against him! How convenient! And another thing...you all have seen the previews where the scarecrow comes to life? Yeah...this doesn't happen until the very end of the movie. Seriously, the scarecrow doesn't come to life until the end of the movie, meaning I'm not scared one iota throughout this entire movie. Well, except for the thought of ending up with a wife like the one in this movie. And now the scarecrow grabs his daughter and she and the wife are trying to be scream queens!!! Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!! OMG! My husband was right! I am a dumb bitch! And with those straw hands that cut and have blood on the straw fingertips and that brown hat and that brown, shriveled, burned-up face...isn't it funny how that scarecrow looks just a wee bit like Freddy Krueger? Folks, please spare yourselves 94 minutes and go watch something else. I give this movie two stars out of ten for each wet boob you at least get to see in this farce of a horror flick. And Ghost House...please...put down the hardcover copy of "In Praise Of Difficult Women" and pick up an XBox 360 and a copy of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow...because their scarecrows are far more terrifying than yours.
SPOILERS!!!**********************************************************
OK, I mean, seriously, when he's out in the cornfield and his neighbor's wife starts stripping for him and makes the sprinklers turn on so she can get all wet, that's where I lost it, OMG!! And while she's doing that, I'm thinking "Wait a minute...the bank guy that tried to take his farm...didn't the husband tell Mr. Bank Guy he came and asked for a loan for water sprinklers and he turned him down? Oh, wait a minute...the cursed scarecrow provided those water sprinklers! Along with a naked chick taking her top off and getting wet dancing in the sprinklers!" And speaking of his neighbor, nice fake Irish accent! And then the neighbors are there in his barn speaking to him. Then emasculating wife turns on the lights and says, "Who are you speaking to?" And he turns around and they're not there. But the knocked-out cop on the ground whom the neighbors knocked out, oh, she saw him still lying there on the ground, he was real! Perfect for turning his emasculating wife further against him! How convenient! And another thing...you all have seen the previews where the scarecrow comes to life? Yeah...this doesn't happen until the very end of the movie. Seriously, the scarecrow doesn't come to life until the end of the movie, meaning I'm not scared one iota throughout this entire movie. Well, except for the thought of ending up with a wife like the one in this movie. And now the scarecrow grabs his daughter and she and the wife are trying to be scream queens!!! Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!! OMG! My husband was right! I am a dumb bitch! And with those straw hands that cut and have blood on the straw fingertips and that brown hat and that brown, shriveled, burned-up face...isn't it funny how that scarecrow looks just a wee bit like Freddy Krueger? Folks, please spare yourselves 94 minutes and go watch something else. I give this movie two stars out of ten for each wet boob you at least get to see in this farce of a horror flick. And Ghost House...please...put down the hardcover copy of "In Praise Of Difficult Women" and pick up an XBox 360 and a copy of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow...because their scarecrows are far more terrifying than yours.
Doesn't Necessarily NOT Connect to Original
jordilynn7 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Had Potential, Fell Flat
theantleredcrown16 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The cast of characters appeared very flat to me and a bit oblivious. At the beginning of the film, the wife seemed supportive and indicated she stood by her husband no matter what hardship may come their way. The children didn't even appear to have a purpose and popped in and out, which, as an author, indicated to me that they were characters capable of being omitted in their entirety. This showed a small amount of weak writing since all characters need to remain pertinent to the script. The characters themselves, excluding Rollins, remained oblivious to blaring obvious signs something was wrong. In modern horror, what makes it powerful is when the characters themselves become aware something is wrong and remain consistent unless signs are not as transparent. In this movie, one could not ignore these signs, yet the wife blames her husband and breaks the promise of "support" despite what he tried to tell her. As I said, this would not be a problem if the supernatural signs weren't so easily noticed. If the wife truly knew her husband, she would know he wouldn't have murdered the lover she clearly pushed away. The son would stand with his father and try to tell his mother about the scarecrow since he was the one who noticed the trouble in the first place. Many little things like this broke believability and created a massive inconsistency.
Many horror movies I've reviewed utilized different filters, such as in Dawn of the Dead and Dark Was the Night, to really bring out the mood of the movie. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow did not do this. This lack of lens filters does not crucify the tone since the mood of the family and the condition of hopeless and helplessness was there. However, adding something, even the smallest of filters might have helped unify the different components and might've made it more appealing to the eye. For this movie, as with My Bloody Valentine, I found myself not truly immersed in the environment due to this lack. Even Stephen King's It and Pet Sematary (2019) utilized this most basic of cinematography to unify the tone.
Now, I enjoy the scarecrow as a figure of horror. I believe it is often under-used since the figure itself is bathed in a plethora of dark folklore. But, this movie, I feel under-used this rather powerful symbol in the aspect of horror. While I enjoyed the design of the scarecrow itself, the fear of it appeared to lack in many of the movie's aspects. The use of dreams and visions during the later part of the film really amped up the tension but I would have liked to see and feel this all throughout the movie.
The ending of the movie ruined it in its entirety for me. I enjoy the "faceless terror" and "cursed object" themes very much so bringing the scarecrow to life shattered these things for me. The ending scene itself was ridiculous. That kid on the tractor showed a level of cheesiness typical of B-type horror unnecessary for this feature. Rollins burned the creature and it remained unharmed, yet being run over by a tractor and pulled apart managed to stop it for the time being? Doubt it.
All in all, this movie disappointed me. Norman Reedus is someone I expected more of since he has done so well with Daryl Dixon in The Walking Dead. I do not recommend this movie unless you like typical cheesy horror or are a fan of scarecrows in general.
Many horror movies I've reviewed utilized different filters, such as in Dawn of the Dead and Dark Was the Night, to really bring out the mood of the movie. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow did not do this. This lack of lens filters does not crucify the tone since the mood of the family and the condition of hopeless and helplessness was there. However, adding something, even the smallest of filters might have helped unify the different components and might've made it more appealing to the eye. For this movie, as with My Bloody Valentine, I found myself not truly immersed in the environment due to this lack. Even Stephen King's It and Pet Sematary (2019) utilized this most basic of cinematography to unify the tone.
Now, I enjoy the scarecrow as a figure of horror. I believe it is often under-used since the figure itself is bathed in a plethora of dark folklore. But, this movie, I feel under-used this rather powerful symbol in the aspect of horror. While I enjoyed the design of the scarecrow itself, the fear of it appeared to lack in many of the movie's aspects. The use of dreams and visions during the later part of the film really amped up the tension but I would have liked to see and feel this all throughout the movie.
The ending of the movie ruined it in its entirety for me. I enjoy the "faceless terror" and "cursed object" themes very much so bringing the scarecrow to life shattered these things for me. The ending scene itself was ridiculous. That kid on the tractor showed a level of cheesiness typical of B-type horror unnecessary for this feature. Rollins burned the creature and it remained unharmed, yet being run over by a tractor and pulled apart managed to stop it for the time being? Doubt it.
All in all, this movie disappointed me. Norman Reedus is someone I expected more of since he has done so well with Daryl Dixon in The Walking Dead. I do not recommend this movie unless you like typical cheesy horror or are a fan of scarecrows in general.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
