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.

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?

For the first part I actually liked this movie: it's entertaining, has a good pace and the acting of Norman Reedus and Heather Stephens is pretty good. We've seen some scarecrows in horror movies before and although they're all (supposedly) scary by nature, they made this one a real mean bugger to look at! The evil acts of the scarecrow are rather subtle in the beginning, apparently it drives other people to their death from afar, by inducing car-accidents and suicides (unfortunately out of our view). It does this out of some sort of commitment to the main character of the movie, farmer John Rollins, who found this old scarecrow hidden somewhere in his barn and puts it in his dilapidated cornfield (not knowing of course that the hideous thing is evil, although his psychic little son DID warn him!). Where the scarecrow comes from or why it's evil is never really revealed; we do see some strange ghost-like kids wander around, which suggests some prior doom lurking over this shabby farm, but we're never given any explanation. Not that it matters much, in the first part of this movie the horror elements seem to be less important then the psychological developments in farmer Rollins' mind, and the way his family, especially his wife, deals with them. Which by the way made for some fine involving scenes.In the second half of the movie there are some more gruesome details and we see vague images of the scarecrow dragging his scythe behind him. And there's a strange neighbour who gives some free advice-from-hell (and a free roll in the hay with his sexy wife to boot)to Rollins, who doggedly follows this advice and gets more and more into supernatural trouble! Still, up to this point, the movie was more atmospherically creepy then a real shocker. But unfortunately the producers wanted some grand finale, and all of a sudden the menacing scarecrow changes into a preposterously stumbling and shrieking live monster that has to be overpowered (in a surprisingly simple way) by the joint efforts of the whole family. Well, they all must have had a good laugh on the set while filming this epic battle! The final scene (one of the non-identified ghost-like kids gathers the remnants of the defeated scarecrow in a bag and hides them in a secluded corner of the barn) suggests an open ending, and since this movie seems to be a prequel to a prior movie "Messengers", it COULD have made sense, albeit not for me, who did not see this original movie. So what the connection between the two is I cannot say. Knowing the exploitation-routines regarding sequels and prequels, probably no connection whatsoever!

Another direct to DVD film to fill the shelves of Blockbuster, this film wasn't THAT bad. It also wasn't that good.The plot is that a down on his luck farmer is getting it from all sides. The bank wants to foreclose on his farm, the old friend from high school is making moves on the wife, and even the damned crows are eating your corn and pooping on it... The poor guy can't get a break, until he finds the scarecrow. Well, it's the best scarecrow ever, because not only does it kill the crows, but the banker and the interloper die in amusingly ironic ways as well...Well, you know how these things always go. Some diabolical force (never really specified) is behind the scarecrow, and he'll want your loved ones, too. (Don't they always?) Still, the movie has some genuine thrills, as well as being fairly interesting as a character study. (The farmer does this Faustian bargain, but he doesn't recoil away from it right away.)Certainly a lot better than most of the usual "bottle of ketchup" horror films who just think gore and cheap thrills make these movies work.