Messengers 2: The Scarecrow poster & wallpaper
Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, Claire Holt, Richard Riehle, Darcy Fowers ... see more see more... , Matthew McNulty , Laurence Belcher

In this prequel to the Pang Brothers' terrifying English-language debut, the eerie backstory of farmer John Rollins plays out in all its bone-chilling glory. Doing what he believes must be done in ord... read more read more...er to save his family and livelihood, John places an odd scarecrow among his crops and promptly reaps the benefits. The thing is, his luck probably won't last for long. Produced by the celebrated Ghosthouse Pictures (30 Days of Night, Drag Me To Hell) and penned by Todd Farmer (the screenwriter behind the 2009 remake of My Bloody Valentine), this is one hayride best not taken alone. ~ Jonathan Frey, Rovi

Flixster Users

16% liked it

1,019 ratings

R, 1 hr. 34 min.

Directed by: Martin Barnewitz

Release Date: July 21, 2009

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: July 21, 2009

Get It:

Stats: 194 reviews

report incorrect info

Photos

None yet... Got one?

Your Rating


clear rating

Flixster Reviews (194)

  • TheDudeLebowski65
    January 18, 2012
    TheDudeLebowski65
    The Messengers may not have been the best horror film, but it definitely wasn't the worst. I frankly enjoyed the first film, and thought it was a fine ghost story. But this direct to DVD Prequel is awful.The film is poorly conceived with a bad plot and bad acting. Like with every... read more other straight to DVD title, The Messengers 2 looks cheaply made. I felt that the film lacked anything that would make a good horror film. The absence of chilling horror makes this an awful film. The Messengers was a good film, but this prequel is simply poorly made. The film has no real connection to The Messengers aside from the films score. I felt bored watching this and it took me everything to finish watching it. I was really hoping to like it, unfortunately, this straight to DVD title continues the tradition of bad straight to DVD titles If you're looking to watch the film, be warned.that it has nothing to do with The Messengers. This prequel doesn't explain anything, and decides to go somewhere that has nothing to do with The Messengers. In other words this prequel doesn't make sense, and is only related to The Messengers in name alone. The film is poorly directed, with sloppy writing and acting. If you're looking for a good horror flick, you won't find it here. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is an awful attempt at cashing on the success of the original. Though The Messengers wasn't a great horror flick, it was still good fgor what it was. But this prequel is simply awful. Avoid it.
  • 3niR
    January 27, 2010
    3niR
    This was worst. I can't really say that the first one was better. The first one was A LOT better than this one.
  • thefog1331
    August 24, 2009
    thefog1331
    "The Shining goes country." SCREEM MAGAZINE
    Quite possibly the most accurate blurb ever.

    Supposely a prequel but completely goes against what The Messengers explains happens to the Rollins family.
    Instead this more than likely was an unused script Sony owned and since it inv... read moreolved a barn and a farmer they adapted it as a 'Messengers' film.
    Needless to say, it sucked. A slow, boring mess that never goes anywhere, borrows heavily from the aforementioned Shining and doesn't satisfy on any level. Well except a nicely gratuitous bare breasted scene. But other than that--zipola.
  • drblood
    August 5, 2009
    drblood
    "Messengers 2" is no better and no worse than 'The Messengers" although it is a prequel and a completely different story. The farm setting is the same and the camerawork and way it looks is identical as well.
    For almost the first hour , it feels like a really good Stephen King ad... read moreaptation even though it's nothing to do with Stephen King of course. Having watched "Thinner" again recently, it has the same pacing and atmosphere. Nothing too much wrong with it at all and there are even some sexy moments just when you think it is going to start to lag. One of the scenes was very similar to Dario Argento's "Jenifer" from the "Masters of Horror" series (which in turn has similarity to part of "Basic Instinct") so it's a bit of a cliche rather than anything else. I'm not going to spoil it for you. The fun of these movies is seeing where plot devices have been borrowed from others anyway.
    Actually adding the sexy bits, including some great boobage on display at one point, was a stroke of genius. As I said, there are moments where you think the story is going to lag and then "Bam!' (to coin a phrase) there's some eyecandy again. That's either a piece of severely well thought out editing to make it commercial or just a fortunate accident. I think it was intentional.
    It'll probably be mentioned a lot by other people but the big draw here is that there are lots of echoes of the current recession. Although farmers are notoriously always getting in financial trouble and it could be set at any time, it just has the right amount of "hooks" for people to identify with and it gives a bit more empathy to the characters. There's a lot of subtext to what's going on with the family rather than an actual subplot but I thought it was well done given the constraints of the rest of the movie. There's no Oscar winning stuff here and a couple of the characters should have been fleshed out a bit more but you have to take things for what they are.
    After the first hour though things start to get a little bit confusing and silly for a few minutes. There are a couple of twists, a bit of an homage to "The Shining", and the ending feels a bit rushed. It flips between being about a cursed object (a la "Friday the 13th: The Series"), to a bit of a ghost story and then back to witchcraft and black magic again. There's even a moment where you think that it's going to turn into "The Uninvited" and be all about madness too but it doesn't eventually go that way.
    Things that really stood out for me was how Norman Reedus (as John Rollins) carried most of the movie on his own. He's no Jack Nicholson and is very "TV" (if you know what I mean) but he was quite credible for the most part. It could always have been a lot worse. I think the script had a lot to do with the annoyances I was feeling towards his character at times.
    The other character roles are all quite small apart from Mary Rollins (played by Heather Stephens). She's very nice to look at but there were times when her character really needed a slap in the mouth. I suppose that was the point too as if I noticed it, so would the scarecrow... and that wish-fulfilment is pretty much the basis of the plot.
    Unfortunately, the scarecrow doesn't really do a lot onscreen except in the last 20 minutes or so. It's a well designed thing but, as ever, it's just a guy in a costume. There isn't really a lot of gore in this either but when there is some blood, it's realistic and not stupidly over the top. It feels like a TV movie a lot so it probably explains why it's so toned down. Again, I think this is a very commercial thing that has been done so that it will get a lot of airplay on Sci-Fi (Syfy) and Chiller without too many cuts. The phrase "art is best when hidden" really springs to mind when such obvious manipulation shows up. It doesn't make it a bad movie though and it is sort of like watching a masterclass in how to interfere with a movie enough to make it appeal to the largest common denominator.
    I actually liked it and liked it enough to buy it later. I think it could be watched more than once not for entertainment but just fascination with how it was made. I doubt that the extras on the DVD will be as enlightening as any insider gossip which we will probably pick up from the internet but you never know.
    I can also see this having at least one more sequel one day mainly because of the totally unnecessary final couple of minutes.
    I'd rate it as 5 out of 10. An entry level/average score for direct to video sequels. If there had only been a little bit more polishing done then it could have got maybe a 6 out of 10. I feel the same way about it as the recent "Last House on the Left" remake as it was a very good try given what they had to work with.
  • fb100002023516744
    September 18, 2011
    fb100002023516744
    Not as good as the first...but still a pretty good film with very interesting and frightening scenes.
  • irisheyes686
    September 8, 2009
    irisheyes686
    SO boring. I wasn't scared once. The first one was better.
  • blongca04
    March 18, 2012
    blongca04
    Defining a movie as "horror" has rapidly become a grayer and grayer area with the advent of the straight-to-DVD market. The unfiltered slop that's consistently spewed into the Walmart bargain bin simply lacks the scares that used to serve as a horror movie's benchmark once upon a... read more time. Instead, fans have begun associating the genre with how much sex and mindless gore is packed into a 2-hour DVD. Story, character development, and the build up of suspense have been forced to take the most secluded of backseats. Enter "Messengers 2: The Scarecrow" - an hour and a half of completely pedestrian nonsense and mind-numbing boredom.

    For the rest of the review, please check out Films All the Time: http://filmsallthetime.blogspot.com
  • mistachy
    November 10, 2010
    mistachy
    This review could "possibly" contain a spoiler... so read with caution. The Messengers 2 didn't offer much different from the first one. Just throw a scare crow into the mix and you have the same movie all over again. I would have given this movie 3 stars had I not seen the first... read more one, but since I seen the first one and it felt like such a repeat, it receives a 2.5... I wont say much because if you've seen the first one, then you need no explanation. If you haven't seen the first one, see it, then watch this one so everything makes sense. Not incredibly scary, but The Messengers 2 is a decent watch.
  • ladollyvitaxo
    October 5, 2009
    ladollyvitaxo
    The first hour is very Stephen King-y. Then a guy gets run over by a semi and things are exciting for 10 minutes or so, but then it goes straight back to Stephen King-y. I like that this movie did keep me guessing....when it was going to end. Zing.
  • angelbear1561
    August 16, 2009
    angelbear1561
    No where near as good at the first one! Unless your totally bored to death..don't even bother with this one.

View All Messengers 2: The Scarecrow Reviews

Critic Reviews

David Nusair
July 23, 2009
David Nusair, Reel Film Reviews

...suffers from many of the problems that plagued its predecessor... Full Review

Steve "Uncle Creepy" Barton
July 15, 2009
Steve "Uncle Creepy" Barton, Dread Central

For better and for worse, Messengers 2: The Scarecrow is - dare I say it - corny. Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Cast

More Like This

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • The Messengers
    The Messengers (100%)
  • Jeepers Creepers 2
    Jeepers Creepers 2 (60%)
  • Jeepers Creepers
    Jeepers Creepers (100%)

More Movies like Messengers 2: The Scarecrow

Facts

No facts approved yet. Be the first

Messengers 2: The... : Watch Free on TV

Movie Quizzes

No quizzes for Messengers 2: The Scarecrow. Want to create one?

Video Clips

No video clips yet. Want to upload one?

Meet Other Fans

Add Messengers 2: The Scarecrow to favorites

Recent News

No recent headlines. Got one?

Recent Lists

Make a List |

View All Lists

Most Popular Skin

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?