There’s nothing particularly special about Messengers2: The Scarecrow but we both liked it enough that we agreed to include it on this year’s list. Tell me what you liked about it.
I liked it because it’s actually a very good, very clever
story. It’s creepy. It’s gruesome. With the native American history behind it, there’s
a certain believability that they could put a curse on the land with
something like an enchanted scarecrow lurking, doing your bidding for you.
If you could have that, the scarecrow doing your bidding
with the price of a few people dying… you think?
Yep. Hell yeah. Get away with stuff scot-free? With nothing
linking back to you? Absolutely.
I don’t think there was nothing linking it back to
him (‘cause, you know, cop) but I get your drift.
What did you think about the production quality of the
film?
The production quality is very good. It was well lit. The film and camera work was clean. It was all very nicely done.
Are there any images that really stuck with you?
The Scarecrow (Vladimir Yosifov,) basically. It’s nicely done and creepy as hell. In some, it looks like a guy in a mask but in this one, it looks weird and outlandish. It didn’t look like a a puppet moving or anything. Like I said, creepy.
Did you have a favourite moment in the movie?
My favourite moment is when Miranda (Darcy Fowers) gets her boobies out and
the sprinklers start while John’s (Norman Reedus) perving on her in the field.
Okay, I have to ask… (Although I really don’t…) Why
that one?
Because she had nice boobies?
One, you’re not wrong. Two, wipe that stupid grin off
your face.
Seriously, though. There wasn’t much gore in Messengers 2.
I would have liked a bit more, but there wasn’t a lot. You never really saw the
dead bodies, the mutilation. I would have liked more of that.
What did you think of the dialogue?
I think most of the dialogue was quite believable. There
wasn’t really any line that stood out for me, though. It wasn’t one of those
films where you have a dramatic speech. There was no “I came here to chewbubble gum and kick ass” moment, for sure.
Just nice boobies?
Champions.
Do you have a favourite character or actor? What are your
thoughts on the acting?
The acting in it was good, Norman Reedus being the most well-known
actor in it – though he wasn’t at the time. It was solid all around. There wasn’t
anyone that you went “OMG.” It was well cast. It just doesn’t overextend
itself.
What did you think of the ending?
Until the very end, you don’t see the scarecrow actually killing anyone. Until that last scene in the barn, you wonder if it’s really the scarecrow or just Norman Reedus losing his mind.
Then, it’s like you said,
you’ve got a dead cop and two dead people. John’s family believe him but, let’s
face it, no other fucker’s going to. He’s going to jail and they’re going to be
left destitute without a farm.
So… kind of a happy/not happy ending?
Kind of.
We’ve seen a LOT of scarecrow movies this past month. How
does this one beat the other thirty or forty?
Just sheer quality. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
It’s not got the budget of Annabelle: Creation or anything like that. It
probably wasn’t a big budget – but it didn’t need to be. It’s a good, solid scary
movie. It doesn’t try to do too much with the effects and the acting is pretty
good. Whoever made it knew what they were doing. They didn’t try to be so
clever they messed it up. The simplest effects can be the most effect. It’s
like Tom Savini always said, keep it simple.
We’ve watched a lot of scarecrow movies and there have been
some shockers. I watched this one at least ten years ago, but it was
good enough to watch again. There weren’t any big twists or shocks but it was
consistent and that’s half the battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment