'The Messengers 2: The Scarecrow' review by MartialHorror

Source: http://freewebs.com/mhmess2

Please check out the site!

THE MESSENGERS 2: THE SCARECROW(2009)
(Directed by Martin Barnewitz)

"The sequel no one wanted!"- Signed by MartialHorror.

Plot: A man, trying to support his family on a Farm, puts up a mysterious scarecrow to scare away the crows. Little does he know, the scarecrow is cursed and people soon begin to die.

Review:

Remember “The Messengers”, that 2007 “Grudge” rip-off that was directed by the Pangs(“Bangkok Dangerous” and it’s remake)in their American debut? Yeah, I don’t either. I remember thinking that the Pangs did as well as they could with it. It had an inspired setting, a few creepy moments, but also lots scenes that made me wonder if the studio interfered. I mean, only by the powers of the studio can a man survive being impaled by a pitchfork. Even Jesus would be impressed. But I remember it as harmless horror fluff that I was surprised to learn was not a remake of an Asian horror film, even though it felt like But did it warrant a sequel? Or a prequel? Not really, but we get a Direct-to-DVD one anyway.

The story follows the Rollins family, as John Rollins(Normal Reedus, of the "Boondock Saints" fame) tries to support his family whiling working on a farm. Unfortunately, the crows keep eating his crops and the bank is threatening to take his house. This puts some stress on his relationship with his wife, Mary(Heather Stephens), even though she seems more than willing to accept him for his failures. Things begin to change when he finds an old scarecrow in his barn. His son warns him about it, claiming that the scarecrow is evil. He puts it up anyways and everything goes great after that. The crows drop dead(literally), the crop flourishes, but then people begin to die.

Many things work against “The Messengers 2”, the first being the question as to why we need another one. I suppose the filmmakers would respond with: “To explain the first movie”, but that would just confuse us more. They could’ve explained it, but if you remember the original and then watch this, you will know that it breaks the continuity. There is a pretty interesting reason for this. Apparently this was supposed to be the original, but the studio rewrote it so much that it was completely changed to the finished project. They just took the original script and made this. Odd.

But the main issues at hands are all the questions it raises, while providing few answers. What was with the kids voices in the cornfield? How come the son knew the scarecrow is evil? Why is the neighbors wife such a whore? Why does the scarecrow turn John into a sexual deviant? Why does the scarecrow continue to kill when John actually attacks it, trying to make it stop. How can the scarecrow kill people outside of the corn field? Someone would have to notice that! Why did they make John a recovering alcoholic? Did they have to rip-off “The Shining”? So many questions go unanswered, making it even more confusing as a supposed explanation of the events of the first film.

With that said, I didn’t think it was that bad. It moves at an even pace, makes you feel bad for its characters, has solid acting and even has a few chilling moments. There is more gore, more tits and it’s more original than its predecessor. I was always interested, and the movie does have decent directing. Apparently it was shot for only $2,000,000, which makes things seem even more impressive. It’s not a good movie, but it isn’t really bad either.

Norman Reedus(John Rollins) delivers a sympathetic hero. He does a great job, and deserves to be in better movies. Heather Stephens(Mary) does fine. The child actors are pretty weak, but everyone else does well enough. Richard Riehle(Jude) is mysterious as the neighbor. That guy has been in like 250 movies!

Scarecrow movies don’t seem to work, whether its “Scarecrow” and it’s crappy sequels, “Night of the Scarecrow” or “Scarecrows”, which almost worked. “The Messengers 2: The Scarecrow” isn’t any better. It's probably even worse, but it’s certainly not terrible. Hell, some people might think it’s better than the first one. I might agree. It’s a movie that benefits from universally low expectations.

Violence: Some nice bits. R worthy.

Nudity: A surprising amount. It’s a hardcore sequel compared to the first.

Overall: I wouldn’t recommend “The Messengers 2”, but if it interests you……You might as well give it a shot. It's not bad in a low budget, sequel-to-a-movie-that-no-one-cared-about kind of way.

2/4 Stars


my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror