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 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 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 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

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

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

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.

con todo el respeto a norman reedus pero menos pinta de granjero

con todo el respeto a norman reedus pero menos pinta de granjero