Prequel that does not make any sense

krycek19

The first rule of a prequel is that the audience in most cases know the story already, so you cannot change the story. The second rule is that you cannot change the ending. Because the audience knows this too. The third rule is that you have to make it really interesting because we as an audience already know the story and know exactly what to expect.

This dumb prequel directed by a guy from my country, I'm ashamed to admit, breaks all of the rules mentioned above.

First off all why didn't they get John Corbett from The Messengers to reprise his role instead of Norman Reedus who is not a very good actor?? Why call the prequel The Messengers 2 when there are no ghosts in this movie?? The messengers in the original was the ghosts of John Rollins dead family. The family that he killed. Clearly because he lost his mind when they were about to leave him.

But this prequel completely ignores that fact. Instead they make it about a supernatural evil scarecrow that kills people. And in the end John saves his family and destroys the scarecrow and they live happily ever after.

It's an insult. Had they made the scarecrow something John simply imagined and John being insane and being the real killer it might have been interesting. Instead we get a badly made CGI-scarecrow so the teen audience can get a little bit of gore and action in and a happy ending, even though it didn't end that way at all. And the writers apparently could not make up their minds as to whether John was simply insane or the scarecrow being alive.

The worst part about this prequel is that it's not scary at all. The original was genuinely scary. This is just boring.

score 1/10

krycek19 16 May 2011

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2429625/