Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009)
The family man farmer John Rollins 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 is giving too much attention to her friend Tommy. When John accidentally discovers a hidden compartment in the barn, he finds a creepy scarecrow but his son Michael makes him promise to destroy it. However, his neighbor Jude Weatherby 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.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
MESSENGERS 2: THE SCARECROW is an unconnected sequel to the first movie featuring a different story and a different cast. In this one, a down-on-his-luck farmer (played by THE WALKING DEAD actor Norman Reedus) discovers a weird old scarecrow in his barn and uses it to get rid of the crows devouring his sweetcorn. He soon finds out that the scarecrow has the power to bring luck to his farm and family, but inevitably there's a price to pay as well.Much of the interest in this film lies in the presence of Reedus shortly before he became a cult favourite after starring in THE WALKING DEAD. Reedus crafts a likable character and is given plenty of screen time, which is great for fans; his acting is also very good, certainly better than anyone else in the film.In other respects, MESSENGERS 2: THE SCARECROW is spooky rather than outright frightening. The plot mixes together monster action with inexplicable deaths and a foreboding atmosphere. Although the Pang brothers weren't involved with this film, as a whole the movie is well made and enjoyable. There's something about rural farmsteads which make them a great setting for horror movies and once again the creepy farm brings this film to life.
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.
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?
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!