Nonureva
Really Surprised!
Baseshment
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Fairaher
The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
jordilynn
I enjoyed both Messengers and Messengers 2 (although the prequel could've contained less nudity and sex). In my opinion, the original is much better and worthy of watching more than once, unlike its prequel. I came here in search of an explanation of what happens between the two movies (unsuccessfully). Because so many reviewers said the two movies contradicted each other, I created an account so I could clarify.Messengers 2 doesn't necessarily NOT connect to The Messengers. At the end of the movie, we get the sense that they're not going to live happily ever after because the scarecrow, although in pieces, is returned to the room we found him in. I'm assuming the scarecrow comes back, the dad goes crazy, kills his family when they try to leave, and then somehow gets rid of the scarecrow before moving. I do wish there was more of an explanation. Maybe they were leaving room for a sequel to the prequel? However, it is inconsistent in the fact that all the actors are different, not to mention I feel like all the deaths would've been mentioned when the daughter in the original was asking about the family that lived in the house before.
utgard14
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?
atinder
I was one few who really liked The Messengers (2007), I thought had some great moment, There were good remember scenes in that movie, the ghost come out of the wall was really creepy. I know this movie is meant to be prequel about total different story about evil Scarecrow,It' not connected to first movie at all. I have only seen one other scarecrow movie that was Jeepers Creepers, which is was much better and scary one. This was my second time I saw this movie, I did not remember much of first watch and I just saw this two days ago, it is very forgettable movie. I did not all plot of story was really dull, I did not find Scare crow scary at all.However I liked the little twist they had in the movie which I never saw coming, The ending of the movie felt way to rushed! Acting was decent from most of cast 3 out of 10
abbey-rowe-464-583194
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!
