Home > Messengers 2: The Scarecrow
 | Price: $10.48 Manufacturer: Sony Pictures  |
Product Description
From Ghost House Pictures, the makers of 30 Days of Night, The Grudge and The Messengers. Unimaginable terror grows in this chilling prequel to the horror hit, The Messengers. Desperate to save his crops, a farmer places a mysterious scarecrow in his fields only to discover that with pure evil? you reap what you sow. As the body count rises around him and his family questions his sanity, he'll have to fight back against a deadly force that knows no bounds.Customer Reviews
Better than the original !!!I liked the 1st movie, this one was much better. Don't listen to most of these reviews. The majority of them are from failed or wannabe movie critics. People who couldn't make it in the real world,so they come to amazon to try and influence peoples buying decisions. This movie is worth the money.
This is not a prequel at all
Yes, this movie has some thrills and chills...but nothing that you have not already seen before, and probably better.
My biggest issue is continutity. This film does not use it. It does not match the history presented from the first film. You will also notice it doesn't match itself throughout the film. The biggest blunder is when John's new neighbor drops by and gives Johna six pack of beer. I said six pack. It is stated that John does not drink. He drinks one can. Later, after a fight with his wife, he drinks a TON of beer on the porch, cans everywhere! How did the six pack multiply?
When the scarecrow is first discovered, it is barely recognizable as a human shape. It barely has legs. By the end of the film, it has feet and looks fat. The family tear it apart, and as they are tearing, you can see that it was barely a figure. I didn't know scarecrows could gain weight, lose it, gain it, lose it....
Overall, this seems like a script was written for a different movie, but was bought for the Messenger franchise and stretched to meet the needs of this horror line.
My reccomendation? Buy it used CHEAP, or rent it if you have time to waste. It's really not worth your investment otherwise.
s
Scare-free
In "Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" Norman Reedus plays a struggling farmer John Rollins. The water pump is broken. The crops are destroyed by crows. Just when things couldn't be worse, he finds an old scarecrow in the barn and puts it up in the field (while his son really dislikes the idea). That's when luck begins to come way. But John soon realizes that everything goes too well, especially when people suddenly start to drop dead in an inexplicable way.
The film (penned by Todd Farmer, "Jason X" and the 2009 remake of "My Bloody Valentine") begins promisingly with nice photography (shot in Bulgaria) and very good acting from Norman Reedus (The Boondock Saints) as a troubled husband of a beautiful wife Mary (Heather Stephens). Each character is given enough background history and in fact the film in the first half is convincing as a drama.
Somewhere in the middle, however, the story (that at first reminds us of one Stanley Kubrik film) starts to get clumsy, or even silly. As you expect, John Rollins sees things and hears voices - some real, some not - but none of them creates mystery or enhance dramatic tension. The film includes pretty graphic nudity (twice), in an attempt to show the psychological aspect of the hero (depressed sexuality or something?), when more subtle touch is needed. The worst is the incoherent and confusing climax that looks as if someone stepped in and changed the scenario.
"Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" is supposed to be a prequel to the 2007 film "The Messengers" starring Kristen Stewart, who went on to be the star of the "Twilight" saga. You don't have to see the original if you want to see the "prequel" as the two stories do not directly connect to each other. Or will there be "Messengers 3"? I hope not.
"Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" is not a total disaster and avid fans of Norman Reedus shouldn't miss it. Still this one needs a better wrap-up and more coherent story.
WHAT WENT WRONG, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN GREAT
THE MESSENGERS 2
THE SCARECROW
What do you do when a film is a series refuses to follow its own rules and come by a story already determined? That is a question I was asking my self after watching the second in "The Messenger" series, I don't know what they were thinking. Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert's Ghost House Pictures for the most part as been fun and entertaining and in fact this one is entertaining. The thing is it does not follow the same story as the first film even though this is a prequel.
The first film was about the family that moved in after the Rollins family, this one is about the Rollins. John who was Burwell in the first film is a struggling farmer who just wants to take care of his family and live a nice quiet life with them. Things are not going as planned as luck would have it since it seems his crops are not coming in. Add in the fact that he is not getting a break any where and his wife is still buddy buddy with an ex. He is getting offers to sell and a neighbor of his seems like a nice guy so he does have options and help, even if it is very little. One day he comes across a scarecrow inside a little room in his barn, and after putting it up things seem to turn around.
His crop starts to turn up growing very well and the money starts to come in but the banker who was pressuring him to sell comes up dead. Also the man who was hitting on his wife who is her ex or whatever also turns up missing. Each time the scarecrow seems to have played a part. This is all well and fine and plays into the horror thing well and makes you think if the scarecrow is doing this or if John is going crazy. As you go back and forth between the possibilities the story seems real entertaining and fun. Things go wrong when the film while obviously a prequel tries to distance itself from the original.
It is the exact same family from the beginning of the first film so obviously we know how they end. In this film though how do we get a happy ending, it just not make sense unless their ending happens later some how. Also the story moves along as if the scarecrow is just all in his head as he is actually committing the murders, but as you will see the thing comes to life some how. That would be fine if the first film would have had some crazed straw packed lunatic in it as well picking people off, also that does not explain the fate of this family in the first film. There are other things like how did the son know the scarecrow was evil and alive and what about all the other unexplained things that never pay off.
Now while there are other things this film does have some things going for it such as lead Norman Reedus who plays John Rollins. He plays the role well playing it as if he is loosing his mind much like the first but to a more extreme extent. Richard Riehle is excellent in this as is the woman who plays his cheating and seductive wife [who is in a good sex scene and nude scenes]. The banker guy was good in this but pretty much every one else just seemed average, not bad.
Writer Todd Farmer who was a writer on the first and director Martin Barnewitz are actually not to blame for the mishap that is this film. During the director/writer commentary which is actually one of the best I have listened to they talk about how the producers of this film basically said "we know it is a prequel but we want a happy ending" writer then follows with "but the first one established what happens to the family". The producers then replied with "yeah we know but lets make this prequel a stand alone film with the family from the first, but still make it a prequel"
Well that all sounds interesting and to be honest it may have worked if they did not make the scarecrow come to life. They could have just had John going crazy and made it a psychological horror film. Even with a happy ending it could be assumed he never truly got over it and relapsed back into insanity at some point. That would have made more sense and made for a better movie. So the question is do I recommend this film, unfortunately yes. I say that because the average fan will most likely like this and all Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert fans will have to own this.
You Call That a Corn Field?
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.
