2009·Horror·1h 34m
7.0
★
The family man farmer John Rollins is stressed with his financial situation: the crows and the lack of irrigation are destroying his crop of corn; the bank is near closure of his mortgage; he does not have credit to fix the water pump or to buy seeds; and his marriage is in crisis and his wife Mary is giving too much attention to her friend Tommy. When John accidentally discovers a hidden compartment in the barn, he finds a creepy scarecrow but his son Michael makes him promise to destroy it. However, his neighbor Jude Weatherby visits him, gives a six-pack of beer to the abstemious John and convinces him to put the scarecrow in the cornfield. Out of the blue, the life of John changes: the crows die; the pump works again irrigating the land; and the banker responsible for the closure has an accident and dies. However, he feels that his land is possessed by something evil that is threatening his beloved family.
Directed by Martin Barnewitz
farm
scarecrow
prequel
killer scarecrow
Trailer
IMDB
N/A
Cast
Norman Reedus
John Rollins
Heather Stephens
Mary Rollins
Claire Holt
Lindsey Rollins
Richard Riehle
Jude Weatherby
Darcy Fowers
Miranda Weatherby
Matthew McNulty
Deputy Milton
Laurence Belcher
Michael Rollins
Todd Jensen
Banker Chapman
Atanas Srebrev
Tommy
Crew
Todd Farmer
Writer
Joseph LoDuca
Original Music Composer
Andrew Pfeffer
Producer
Robert Tapert
Executive Producer
William Sherak
Executive Producer
Jason Shuman
Executive Producer
Todd Farmer
Characters
Sunday Boling
Casting
Jonas Talkington
Casting
Popular Reviews
17 reviews
Ananda
5.0★ · 02/02/26
Tava muito bom de assistir, mesmo os personagens não tendo personalidade e as mulheres sendo tratadas só como pedaço de carne (de novo). um furo IMENSO de roteiro, a família toda sobrevive sendo que no primeiro filme diz que todos morreram assassinados pelo John e ele age como se isso realmente tivesse acontecido, mas nesse filme ele não mata ninguém e nem enlouquece, QUE INFERNO odiei
Tava muito bom de assistir, mesmo os personagens não tendo personalidade e as mulheres sendo tratadas só como pedaço de carne (de novo). um furo IMENSO de roteiro, a família toda sobrevive sendo que no primeiro filme diz que todos morreram assassinados pelo John e ele age como se isso realmente tivesse acontecido, mas nesse filme ele não mata ninguém e nem enlouquece, QUE INFERNO odiei
Jack
1.0★ · 06/28/25
this was just as boring as the original, except there’s no kirsten
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this was just as boring as the original, except there’s no kirsten
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
jack
1.0★ · 06/28/25
this was just as boring as the original, except there’s no kirsten
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this was just as boring as the original, except there’s no kirsten
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
this film is just so nonsensically boring. dull and underdeveloped characters, stale acting, dim dialogue, over edited to the core, and a really underutilised setting. the first film was bad, but I felt like it had redeeming elements, it just kinda felt like a low budget supernatural flick with a decent backstory and okay characters. this one takes everything bad about the original film and just makes it worse. the characters for one were either just there taking up air or just incredibly unlikeable, the plot was just a rehashed version of the original without a spec of charm. there was also like 2 rape scenes in this film, both not contributing to the plot at all and in both it’s just completely jarring not only the lack of taste but also just being edited like a grindhouse sequel. this was just the wannabe version of children on the corn and this film doesn’t have any individuality at all. by the half way point ur just begging for it to end, but luckily for you the last half is still bad but atleast something happens. watched this for claire holt tbh
Jake McCoy
2.0★ · 06/24/25
I was confused as shit after the credits started rolling so I had to go to the IMDb trivia page for this and found this:
The 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.
Oookay that does explain why this “prequel” doesn’t end with Rollins killing his family like, you know, we found out that he did in the first movie. Buuuut why do people still call it a prequel if it’s just a different story basically? And why bother just calling it Messengers 2, hell the first is hardly a classic, just calling it The Scarecrow would have been better, but then again this hardly was good anyway. Maybe I shouldn’t overthink it
The 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.
Oookay that does explain why this “prequel” doesn’t end with Rollins killing his family like, you know, we found out that he did in the first movie. Buuuut why do people still call it a prequel if it’s just a different story basically? And why bother just calling it Messengers 2, hell the first is hardly a classic, just calling it The Scarecrow would have been better, but then again this hardly was good anyway. Maybe I shouldn’t overthink it
I was confused as shit after the credits started rolling so I had to go to the IMDb trivia page for this and found this:
The 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.
Oookay that does explain why this “prequel” doesn’t end with Rollins killing his family like, you know, we found out that he did in the first movie. Buuuut why do people still call it a prequel if it’s just a different story basically? And why bother just calling it Messengers 2, hell the first is hardly a classic, just calling it The Scarecrow would have been better, but then again this hardly was good anyway. Maybe I shouldn’t overthink it
The 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.
Oookay that does explain why this “prequel” doesn’t end with Rollins killing his family like, you know, we found out that he did in the first movie. Buuuut why do people still call it a prequel if it’s just a different story basically? And why bother just calling it Messengers 2, hell the first is hardly a classic, just calling it The Scarecrow would have been better, but then again this hardly was good anyway. Maybe I shouldn’t overthink it
Logan H
1.0★ · 02/01/25
This movie is the worst and stupidest prequel ever.It did not follow the storyline from what the first movie did with John’s family. Plus some parts didn’t make sense and we didn’t get enough backstory from were the fucking stupid scarecrow came from. Highly recommended don’t waste watching this movie because the first one was better.
This movie is the worst and stupidest prequel ever.It did not follow the storyline from what the first movie did with John’s family. Plus some parts didn’t make sense and we didn’t get enough backstory from were the fucking stupid scarecrow came from. Highly recommended don’t waste watching this movie because the first one was better.