[Messengers 2:Scarecrow]
Plot:Prequel to "The Messengers" which goes back to the farm from the first film to learn the story of John Rollins - the simple North Dakota farmer, struggling to save his farm and hold his family together. When he places a mysterious scarecrow in his field his luck changes for the better...but it may be at the cost of his sanity.

Cast:Norman Reedus, Michael McCoy, Erbi Ago, Claire Holt, Darcy Fowers, Richard Riehle.

My Thoughts:Better than "The Messengers"....sadly.

Review:After watching"Messengers 2:Scarecrow", I've come to the conclusion that it's far better than "The Messengers", the film which came before it, and even had a much better cast. Dylan Mcdermott, Kristen Stewart, and Penelope Ann Miller. This films sports Norman Reedus as it's only really well known name. "Messengers 2" is a prequel to "The Messengers", one of the most boring horror films to come out of the Ghost House camp since "Boogeyman".

And when I say boring, I mean BORING! Boring enough to put a horse with 5 bullets lodged in it's body to sleep. At any rate, that film was directed by the Pang Brothers, who made their mark in asian horror cinema. Of course with studio politics, and the drive to get that PG-13 audience, their "Messengers" was pretty much sunk even before the boat left the doc. It certainly was not a film which felt Pangish at all. But felt like the studio pulled the strings and the Pangs just filmed it. "Scarecrow" fills in the blanks (even though there weren't any), of the events which led up to the first film.

Norman Reedus plays John Rollins, the North Dakota farmer mentioned in the first film. It's his farm which is the basis of all the evil hullabaloo that took place in part 1. In this movie, we learn how the farm became evil, and what drove and gave birth to the bad juju in the first place. Rollins story is a usual one you can find anywhere over flyover country in the U.S. He's got a wife and two kids to support, but the farm sucks, the irrigation system sucks even more, and those pesky crows keep eating all the crops. So Rollins, while trying to figure out what to do, comes across a wicked-looking scarecrow in the barn.

His son gets a bad feleing from the object, and warns his dad to destroy it. But it's a horror movie, so of course....he doesn't listen and puts it up anyways. But in Rollins defense, between the bank threatening to take the farm, and he himself running low on cash to feed his family, he really has no choice. So he puts up the scarecrow, and it not only scares away the crows, but it kills them. It also seems to have brought John some good fortune as well, his crops grow healthier than ever, and his irrigation system begins to run as smooth as a dream.

Things seem to be looking up for John, until people who cross him begin to turn up dead. As if the same force which has given him a recent run of good luck, is also doling out punishment to his enemies. But when the deaths begin to rattle his family and threaten his marriage, changing the way his wife sees him, John then decides to rid himself of the scarecrow. But is it already too late? This movie is a lot better than "The Messengers". But would I call it an exceptional piece of straight-to-dvd cinema? Nah. It's is a sequel to "The Messengers" after all. Even though it's a prequel storywise, the "2" in the title makes it a sequel nonetheless.

Also a movie about a haunted farm doesn't really get me excited as a viewer. I mean not since King's "Children Of The Corn", has a film about a haunted or spiritually-corrupted piece of land ever given me the heebie jeebies. "The Empty Acre", "The Messengers", neither of them worked really well. But "Messengers 2" manages to atleast be worth a watch because of the performances. Reedus as John Rollins is a lot more entertaining to watch on screen than Mcdermott was in the first film. The supporting cast of Richard Riehle and others also make the movie a lot more interesting.

Riehle, a veteran actor, and no stranger to the horror genre (e.g. his appearance in Adam Green's Hatchet), gives the film a second intriguing character in Mr. Jude Weatherby. There's a very dark twist involving Riehle's character within the films final act, which gives the movie some much-needed punch during the finale. But this movie also has it's cliche moments. The weird flashback scenes, the ghostly apparitions, and of course the obligatory ghost-kid-reciting-bible-verses -- all make an appearance in this film.

Because after all, it's a Ghost House movie, and it's a supernatural horror film. And everyone knows they all have to follow the same set of rules (sarcasm). So if you're looking for anything refreshing or new here, think again. This is really the type of movie where sometimes, you just have to "go with it." Blood and gore also aren't high on this films list. Beyond one scene where a guy is mowed down by a huge truck, there's not many gruesome and grissly demises to speak of here.

Of course the films conclusion sets it up for another installment, because again, it's a prequel to "The Messengers" and all. I really hope Ghost House doesn't try and make this series into a trilogy ala "The Grudge'' and "Boogeyman". As far as "The Messengers" is concerned, I think I've seen enough. The fact that this movie was better than "The Messengers" is sad, considering how much money was spent on actors, fx, and advertising with the first movie. When a straight-to-dvd cheapie beats out it's mainstream predecessor, there's something really wrong there.

Positives:Norman Reedus and Richard Riehle's performances. The twists revealed at the end.

Negatives:Too many cliches as I said, such as the moments where ghosts are there and then disappear, the flashbacks, and the giggling kid reciting bible verses. Not many interesting characters beyond Reedus as John Rollins, and not enough blood and gore. Also everything tried with the scarecrow spirit did not come off as scary in the least.

Overall:Two stars out of four.





( Talk about it in the Forums!)



( Back to the main page)