PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
4,7/10
5,3 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Añade un argumento en tu idiomaDoing what he believes must be done in order to save his family and livelihood, farmer John Rollins places an odd scarecrow among his crops and promptly reaps the benefits. The thing is, his... Leer todoDoing what he believes must be done in order to save his family and livelihood, farmer John Rollins places an odd scarecrow among his crops and promptly reaps the benefits. The thing is, his luck probably won't last for long.Doing what he believes must be done in order to save his family and livelihood, farmer John Rollins places an odd scarecrow among his crops and promptly reaps the benefits. The thing is, his luck probably won't last for long.
Reseñas destacadas
I'm a huge horror fan, and I tend to watch most dvds I can get my hands on.
This straight to DVD "prequel" of the original film should please most horror fans. It's not a great movie, and you'll likely forget it not long after watching, but it's entertaining enough if your expectations are low.
It has good acting and a big-budget look. I didn't know much about the plot going in, so some of the twists towards the end were a little unexpected for me. It doesn't have much at all to do with the original Messengers.
The plot is a little goofy. But I think it gives this B movie some of its charm.
This straight to DVD "prequel" of the original film should please most horror fans. It's not a great movie, and you'll likely forget it not long after watching, but it's entertaining enough if your expectations are low.
It has good acting and a big-budget look. I didn't know much about the plot going in, so some of the twists towards the end were a little unexpected for me. It doesn't have much at all to do with the original Messengers.
The plot is a little goofy. But I think it gives this B movie some of its charm.
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?
John Rollins (Norman Reedus) is under pressure with his failing family farm. He has his wife Mary (Heather Stephens), daughter Lindsey (Claire Holt) and son Michael (Laurence Belcher). His farm is over-run with crows. He finds a creepy scarecrow in the barn to scare the crows. His son wants him to get rid of it. His new neighbor Jude Weatherby (Richard Riehle) convinces him to put it up. He hears voices. All the crows die. Sleazy banker George Chapman comes with an offer to buy him out. The broken water pump starts working again. The banker dies getting run over by a truck. There seems to be an evil possessing John. He grows more jealous of his wife's friend Tommy.
It's questionable if this is related to the first movie. It's just as well. The first one wasn't any good. This one is a little better. It has some personal drama that's not relying on a cheap reveal. The scarecrow is an old cliché but that's not a problem. I do like Reedus but he doesn't have enough range to project a big creepy change. I like the story in this one slightly better than the original but the production quality is straight-to-video level.
It's questionable if this is related to the first movie. It's just as well. The first one wasn't any good. This one is a little better. It has some personal drama that's not relying on a cheap reveal. The scarecrow is an old cliché but that's not a problem. I do like Reedus but he doesn't have enough range to project a big creepy change. I like the story in this one slightly better than the original but the production quality is straight-to-video level.
The Messengers 2 is a very prototypical low grade horror sequel. These types of movie never feature the stars that made the first and try to capture the mood of the first without stepping on it's toes too much. The idea would be to elaborate on the parts that worked and avoid the parts that didn't. Unfortunately most of them do the opposite and this entry is no different.
As a full movie this isn't as terrible as some horror movies you'll see out there. There are a few interesting ideas and twists but not many. The movie is also acted well if not lacklusterly under toned.
The concept of being scared of the scarecrow just didn't work for me. It never really seemed like anything other than an inanimate object. The movie kind of crawled along and was predictable as well. There was too much emphasis on the farm (which albeit is a key theme) and not enough focus on the horror. The first movie was good because it mixed the farm setting with an inherited horror and human interaction. This movie left the interaction out and elaborated on the farm.
I would really only recommend this movie to farm lovers. If you loved the first movie then it's worth a watch but you'll likely be disappointed.
As a full movie this isn't as terrible as some horror movies you'll see out there. There are a few interesting ideas and twists but not many. The movie is also acted well if not lacklusterly under toned.
The concept of being scared of the scarecrow just didn't work for me. It never really seemed like anything other than an inanimate object. The movie kind of crawled along and was predictable as well. There was too much emphasis on the farm (which albeit is a key theme) and not enough focus on the horror. The first movie was good because it mixed the farm setting with an inherited horror and human interaction. This movie left the interaction out and elaborated on the farm.
I would really only recommend this movie to farm lovers. If you loved the first movie then it's worth a watch but you'll likely be disappointed.
Basically The Shining meets Signs meets Children of the Corn but it's better than it sounds. John Rollins is an out of luck farmer, his corn is diseased, crows are eating what's not, he can't afford to fix his irrigation or buy fertilizer, he's on the outs with his wife and an evil banker is foreclosing on his farm. Then he finds a hideous scarecrow that frightens his son but a new neighbor convinces him to put up. Suddenly his luck changes... the crows die, the corn is healthy, the water pump works, he finds a wad of money and even gets laid. Soon bad things happen to his enemies, his family situation grows worse and he starts to worry about the scarecrow.
On the face of it, M2 isn't a very good movie but two things save it, Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens. Reedus fully develops John Rollins, in the beginning a good Christian, a tad paranoid and an almost broken man. When things improve his confidence and virility grow as do his bad habits with a little nudging from the new neighbor; and finally desperation when the price of success grows too high. Stephens does a very good job in her supporting role as John's wife, Mary Rollins. Between them, they make the movie believable. The filmmakers allow Reedus to act and don't burden him or Stephens with too many lines. For most of the movie, the scarecrow is just a totem but eventually comes to life and the film loses effectiveness. From other reviews I get that M2 doesn't work well as a sequel but I never saw the original. As a standalone, it's worth a watch.
On the face of it, M2 isn't a very good movie but two things save it, Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens. Reedus fully develops John Rollins, in the beginning a good Christian, a tad paranoid and an almost broken man. When things improve his confidence and virility grow as do his bad habits with a little nudging from the new neighbor; and finally desperation when the price of success grows too high. Stephens does a very good job in her supporting role as John's wife, Mary Rollins. Between them, they make the movie believable. The filmmakers allow Reedus to act and don't burden him or Stephens with too many lines. For most of the movie, the scarecrow is just a totem but eventually comes to life and the film loses effectiveness. From other reviews I get that M2 doesn't work well as a sequel but I never saw the original. As a standalone, it's worth a watch.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe first 'Messengers' was to be this story, where a man was influenced by a scarecrow, and was to be called 'The Scarecrow'. The end result of the first film ended up being a completely different story, with a different screenwriter given the writer's credit, with Todd Farmer receiving a 'story by' credit. Todd Farmer penned 'Messengers 2' and was this time given full credit as writer.
- PifiasAll of Norman Reedus' visible tattoos (the star, heart and his son's name on his right arm), where covered with make-up darker then his skin tone, making it look his character, John, had permanent bruises.
- Citas
[repeated line]
Michael Rollins: It knows that I know
- ConexionesFollows The Messengers (2007)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Taquilla
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 1.521.800 US$
- Duración1 hora 34 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta