Had Potential, Fell Flat
The cast of characters appeared very flat to me and a bit oblivious. At the beginning of the film, the wife seemed supportive and indicated she stood by her husband no matter what hardship may come their way. The children didn't even appear to have a purpose and popped in and out, which, as an author, indicated to me that they were characters capable of being omitted in their entirety. This showed a small amount of weak writing since all characters need to remain pertinent to the script. The characters themselves, excluding Rollins, remained oblivious to blaring obvious signs something was wrong. In modern horror, what makes it powerful is when the characters themselves become aware something is wrong and remain consistent unless signs are not as transparent. In this movie, one could not ignore these signs, yet the wife blames her husband and breaks the promise of "support" despite what he tried to tell her. As I said, this would not be a problem if the supernatural signs weren't so easily noticed. If the wife truly knew her husband, she would know he wouldn't have murdered the lover she clearly pushed away. The son would stand with his father and try to tell his mother about the scarecrow since he was the one who noticed the trouble in the first place. Many little things like this broke believability and created a massive inconsistency.Many horror movies I've reviewed utilized different filters, such as in Dawn of the Dead and Dark Was the Night, to really bring out the mood of the movie. Messengers 2: The Scarecrow did not do this. This lack of lens filters does not crucify the tone since the mood of the family and the condition of hopeless and helplessness was there. However, adding something, even the smallest of filters might have helped unify the different components and might've made it more appealing to the eye. For this movie, as with My Bloody Valentine, I found myself not truly immersed in the environment due to this lack. Even Stephen King's It and Pet Sematary (2019) utilized this most basic of cinematography to unify the tone.
Now, I enjoy the scarecrow as a figure of horror. I believe it is often under-used since the figure itself is bathed in a plethora of dark folklore. But, this movie, I feel under-used this rather powerful symbol in the aspect of horror. While I enjoyed the design of the scarecrow itself, the fear of it appeared to lack in many of the movie's aspects. The use of dreams and visions during the later part of the film really amped up the tension but I would have liked to see and feel this all throughout the movie.
The ending of the movie ruined it in its entirety for me. I enjoy the "faceless terror" and "cursed object" themes very much so bringing the scarecrow to life shattered these things for me. The ending scene itself was ridiculous. That kid on the tractor showed a level of cheesiness typical of B-type horror unnecessary for this feature. Rollins burned the creature and it remained unharmed, yet being run over by a tractor and pulled apart managed to stop it for the time being? Doubt it.
All in all, this movie disappointed me. Norman Reedus is someone I expected more of since he has done so well with Daryl Dixon in The Walking Dead. I do not recommend this movie unless you like typical cheesy horror or are a fan of scarecrows in general.
score 4/10
theantleredcrown 16 July 2019
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4999277/35280
Pages:
[1]