I don't know what people expect from thriller/horror movies if they are willing to call this one tragically bad or "lame". Not all thriller movies can be the best - and this one is not one of the "best" you'll ever see. But that's no reason to slam it quite so badly. There have to be a bunch of movies that are in the average range, obviously, not all movies can be the best. This one is definitely in the average range - BUT it's one of the better "average" thrillers you'll come across. The reason it's in the upper levels of "average" is because it's directed by the Pang Brothers. They are responsible for The Eye and Bangkok Dangerous and their brilliant stamp is all over this little thriller. Take notice of how beautifully framed each scene is, the effective use of silence throughout, the play on colours & textures, the minimalist dialogue etc. It's beautifully filmed and well acted by all but the mother character and it creates a lovely tense atmosphere with plenty of scares and spooks (but no blood and guts - so that will "disappoint" some). The biggest problem with the movie is the screenplay itself. It's not the most riveting story in the world & the plot has several flaws (like so many thrillers do). But it doesn't matter, in the hands of the Pangs this taut little thriller still a far better movie than most and easily worth the rental. Just don't go into it expecting the next best thing. It is what it is. An average but gripping movie.
235 Reviews
Nothing new, but not unwatchable
mrmatt141 February 2007
I saw this one tonight at a screening, and I wasn't entirely disappointed. I'll be honest -- there's nothing new in The Messengers. It's all been seen before in earlier, more original movies. This one is kind of a "best of" reel of some good ideas from other horror movies. If you're looking for something original and scary, this isn't it. If you're looking for a little jumpy fun, I can't say this one is a miss. By virtue of the "good ideas" being good, they work. What it lacks in originality it makes up for in assembling them in a reasonably coherent manner.
My only real gripe is that Dylan McDermitt looks about as out of place working the fields of his farm as any actor I can think of. They could have at least tried a LITTLE bit harder casting that part.
Think The Birds + Ju On + Amityville Horror + Sixth Sense.
My only real gripe is that Dylan McDermitt looks about as out of place working the fields of his farm as any actor I can think of. They could have at least tried a LITTLE bit harder casting that part.
Think The Birds + Ju On + Amityville Horror + Sixth Sense.
Not great, but not too bad
kuroneko_kitty5 February 2007
There is evidence to suggest that children... would really rather watch something else.
As suspense/horror movies go, this one isn't amazing. Its hardly original; more like Hitchcock's The Birds meets Verbinski's The Ring. Honestly. Its a perfect combination of the two.
Personally I'd recommend watching the afore mentioned separately, each being better alone than this film. Really, the only thing it seems to have in abundance OTHER than unoriginality, is cheap pop-out scares. I mean, yeah, its kinda fun the first time or two... but after about half a dozen, you start to wonder if there is anything else to be had.
The acting wasn't entirely horrible, I'll admit to that much. The Turner kids who played Ben are certainly entertaining to watch, giving a cute contrast to the grungy atmosphere of the movie. Cancer Man... wait... no, sorry, William Davis could have done better in my opinion, as could Miller... but considering the type of movie this is, one doesn't have a lot of room to nitpick.
As a quick side note, I DO commend this movie for not being gratuitously gory. Its rare to find modern movies in this genre that don't blatantly use blood and guts to invoke fear.
All in all, this movie isn't the worst of its kinda, but it is in no way the best. If you want cheap, minimal-gore thrills that will make you jump, go see it. If you're looking for a deeper, more thought-provoking thriller... I strongly recommend looking elsewhere.
As suspense/horror movies go, this one isn't amazing. Its hardly original; more like Hitchcock's The Birds meets Verbinski's The Ring. Honestly. Its a perfect combination of the two.
Personally I'd recommend watching the afore mentioned separately, each being better alone than this film. Really, the only thing it seems to have in abundance OTHER than unoriginality, is cheap pop-out scares. I mean, yeah, its kinda fun the first time or two... but after about half a dozen, you start to wonder if there is anything else to be had.
The acting wasn't entirely horrible, I'll admit to that much. The Turner kids who played Ben are certainly entertaining to watch, giving a cute contrast to the grungy atmosphere of the movie. Cancer Man... wait... no, sorry, William Davis could have done better in my opinion, as could Miller... but considering the type of movie this is, one doesn't have a lot of room to nitpick.
As a quick side note, I DO commend this movie for not being gratuitously gory. Its rare to find modern movies in this genre that don't blatantly use blood and guts to invoke fear.
All in all, this movie isn't the worst of its kinda, but it is in no way the best. If you want cheap, minimal-gore thrills that will make you jump, go see it. If you're looking for a deeper, more thought-provoking thriller... I strongly recommend looking elsewhere.
Prepare for a game of "Count the Mic"
Dismissed4 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.
Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.
As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.
Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.
The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him?
This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).
Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.
As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.
Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.
The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him?
This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).
Entertaining as it as much eerie
jonwalters-111 April 2007
"The Messengers" is a been there, done that, horror about a family who move to a spooky house in the middle of nowhere and then strange things begin to happen. It sounds like you have seen this film before yet the story still keeps you interested and in some cases even intrigued.
A family move from Chicago to an eerie, abandoned farmhouse in North Dakota to start a fresh and to start growing sunflowers on its land, aw. Then the teenager daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart, Panic Room) begins to sense strange happenings from the moment they move in, something just isn't quite right, her toddler brother, Ben, also begins to notice creaking noises and following shadows and the mother (Penelope Ann Miller) just can't get rid of THAT stain on the wall. However, the family don't seem to communicate so everybody just gets on with it without mentioning the strange goings on to other family members. Tut.
Roy the dad, (Dylan McDermott, Miracle on 34th St) then hires Burwell, a man who has literally came from nowhere to help on the farm, just as long as Roy throws in a free dinner. Mysterious Burwell (Aidan from Sex and the City) comes complete with sideburns a beard and a backwards cap, yes, a backwards cap. They are all getting on nicely, the sunflowers are growing, Jess has made a friend in Bobby but mum Denise just can't get THAT stain off the wall. So where did Burwell come from? Please enter ghostly Gollum like figures, shrieking violins, pecking crows and a lot of jumpy movements.
There isn't much new with "The Messengers" but with the film changing which character it's going to focus on every 5 minutes it still manages to keep you entertained and even concerned in what is going to happen. However, we know what is going to happen, don't we? You know what's round the corner, yet you still manage to jump, and I still managed to enjoy it!
A family move from Chicago to an eerie, abandoned farmhouse in North Dakota to start a fresh and to start growing sunflowers on its land, aw. Then the teenager daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart, Panic Room) begins to sense strange happenings from the moment they move in, something just isn't quite right, her toddler brother, Ben, also begins to notice creaking noises and following shadows and the mother (Penelope Ann Miller) just can't get rid of THAT stain on the wall. However, the family don't seem to communicate so everybody just gets on with it without mentioning the strange goings on to other family members. Tut.
Roy the dad, (Dylan McDermott, Miracle on 34th St) then hires Burwell, a man who has literally came from nowhere to help on the farm, just as long as Roy throws in a free dinner. Mysterious Burwell (Aidan from Sex and the City) comes complete with sideburns a beard and a backwards cap, yes, a backwards cap. They are all getting on nicely, the sunflowers are growing, Jess has made a friend in Bobby but mum Denise just can't get THAT stain off the wall. So where did Burwell come from? Please enter ghostly Gollum like figures, shrieking violins, pecking crows and a lot of jumpy movements.
There isn't much new with "The Messengers" but with the film changing which character it's going to focus on every 5 minutes it still manages to keep you entertained and even concerned in what is going to happen. However, we know what is going to happen, don't we? You know what's round the corner, yet you still manage to jump, and I still managed to enjoy it!
leaves me not really offended, though never impresses either, it's just a mediocre horror movie
Quinoa198413 February 2007
I don't think that I would completely write off the Pang brothers, Oxide and Danny, as they don't completely go into the self-indulgent post-modernism that has panged, no pun intended, the horror filmmakers of late. Only once or twice they jump into 'Saw' territory. But even having not seen the majority of the Japanese horror movies that have give rise to the over-abundance of 'ghosts-in-my-house' wave (and, likewise, to their American counterparts), there isn't too much with surprise or shocks in The Messengers.
I'm sure they're self-conscious of the films they're paying homage/ripping off (the one scene involving the crows and their rendezvous with John Corbett's character is like a chummier mash of The Birds and North by Northwest; Shining and Close Encounters references seem a little more than clear to me too), yet they also succumb to having their film be really affect-less. It's never too stupid though; I didn't have a disliking toward any one character, with the exception being maybe towards the end with Corbett (I don't think I'm spoiling much there), and it's the sort of typical family-moves-into-a-creepy-house story that decides to hit the usual bases without going rapidly wrong on the marks.
But there's also the muddle that comes in dealing with the supernatural side of things, amid the average scares of 'what did I hear in the other room, I'll go check'. For one thing, the variations on who the ghosts and demons in the house are- if they're the family that used to live there, or if they might be the whatevers that killed off the family striking back at the new family in the house. There's fair acting from the family (Kristen Stewart of Panic Room fills in the teenage-girl niche, and there's competent work from McDermott and Miller; Colbert is a little creepy, but I guess that's the point; William B. Davis's bit part is the best real surprise of the movie), but it's all at the mercy of a standard script that might've been better, damn if I say it, as a half hour TV episode or something. Only sometimes, too, are there some potential unintentional laughs to be had, mostly towards the climax and with the very randomly placed crows that can only come in a pretty inexplicable flick such as this.
In the end, the Messengers is nothing new, and won't contribute much at all to the horror genre at large, but I wouldn't throw it in my 'I hate this movie so much' bin either, as it only continues to that non-threatening realm of the kinda-creepy PG-13 haunted house picture.
I'm sure they're self-conscious of the films they're paying homage/ripping off (the one scene involving the crows and their rendezvous with John Corbett's character is like a chummier mash of The Birds and North by Northwest; Shining and Close Encounters references seem a little more than clear to me too), yet they also succumb to having their film be really affect-less. It's never too stupid though; I didn't have a disliking toward any one character, with the exception being maybe towards the end with Corbett (I don't think I'm spoiling much there), and it's the sort of typical family-moves-into-a-creepy-house story that decides to hit the usual bases without going rapidly wrong on the marks.
But there's also the muddle that comes in dealing with the supernatural side of things, amid the average scares of 'what did I hear in the other room, I'll go check'. For one thing, the variations on who the ghosts and demons in the house are- if they're the family that used to live there, or if they might be the whatevers that killed off the family striking back at the new family in the house. There's fair acting from the family (Kristen Stewart of Panic Room fills in the teenage-girl niche, and there's competent work from McDermott and Miller; Colbert is a little creepy, but I guess that's the point; William B. Davis's bit part is the best real surprise of the movie), but it's all at the mercy of a standard script that might've been better, damn if I say it, as a half hour TV episode or something. Only sometimes, too, are there some potential unintentional laughs to be had, mostly towards the climax and with the very randomly placed crows that can only come in a pretty inexplicable flick such as this.
In the end, the Messengers is nothing new, and won't contribute much at all to the horror genre at large, but I wouldn't throw it in my 'I hate this movie so much' bin either, as it only continues to that non-threatening realm of the kinda-creepy PG-13 haunted house picture.
Effect of Hollywood in Pang Brothers
claudio_carvalho18 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Roy Solomon (Dylan McDermott), his wife Denise (Penelope Ann Miller), their teenage daughter Jessica (Kristen Stewart) and their little son Ben move from Chicago to an old farm in North Dakota to rebuild their family, financially affected by the long unemployment of Roy and a car accident of Jessica that has brought serious problems to Ben. Roy plants sunflowers in the land and hires the stranger Burwell (John Corbett) to help him until the harvest. When Jess sees ghosts and poltergeists in the house, her parents do not believe on her. She tries to prove that she is not insane or trying to call their attentions, and discovers the fate of the former owners.
Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang are (or were) among my favorite directors of horror movies. Unfortunately they moved to Hollywood, and the commercial effect of this industry is certainly affecting the work of the brothers. "The Messenger" is not a bad movie, and I have actually startled many times. However, there is absolutely no originality in the story that blends "The Shining", "The Birds", "Wicked Little Things", "The Sixth Sense", "The Others", "The Amityville Horror", "Poltergeist", "The Gate", "The Ring", "The Grudge" and many other movies, plus a collection of clichés and a terrible happy end. The story has a great flaw and does not explain why Jessica and her family are haunted by the Rollins; however, when Burwell threatens the Solomon family, why the ghosts do not protect them? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Os Mensageiros" ("The Messengers")
Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang are (or were) among my favorite directors of horror movies. Unfortunately they moved to Hollywood, and the commercial effect of this industry is certainly affecting the work of the brothers. "The Messenger" is not a bad movie, and I have actually startled many times. However, there is absolutely no originality in the story that blends "The Shining", "The Birds", "Wicked Little Things", "The Sixth Sense", "The Others", "The Amityville Horror", "Poltergeist", "The Gate", "The Ring", "The Grudge" and many other movies, plus a collection of clichés and a terrible happy end. The story has a great flaw and does not explain why Jessica and her family are haunted by the Rollins; however, when Burwell threatens the Solomon family, why the ghosts do not protect them? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Os Mensageiros" ("The Messengers")
The Messengers was a Mess!
hate_mcangry6 June 2007
It's really too bad. This movie had all the makings of a good horror flick. It starts out great, then starts to get boring. You find yourself waiting and waiting for something scary to happen. There are a few creepy scenes, but they have been done over and over again in countless other movies. A couple of jolt wanna-be scares are placed here and there, but most times fall flat.
The plot doesn't even get a chance to fall apart, it wasn't there to begin with. Simple is the key for a movie like this. If you want a creepy horror movie, stay with the creepiness. If you want a jolting screaming horror movie, stay with that. If you want some twisting turning horror movie, stay with that. Combining all those factors, with a poor story line, just doesn't work for me.
Good acting all around, but one scene when the family are driving in the SUV, the actors suddenly look as though they are all lost. It almost seemed at that point the director took the script and went to the bathroom for a couple of minutes.
All in all, could've been better.
The plot doesn't even get a chance to fall apart, it wasn't there to begin with. Simple is the key for a movie like this. If you want a creepy horror movie, stay with the creepiness. If you want a jolting screaming horror movie, stay with that. If you want some twisting turning horror movie, stay with that. Combining all those factors, with a poor story line, just doesn't work for me.
Good acting all around, but one scene when the family are driving in the SUV, the actors suddenly look as though they are all lost. It almost seemed at that point the director took the script and went to the bathroom for a couple of minutes.
All in all, could've been better.
Good direction saves this CGI ghost story
Leofwine_draca28 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
THE MESSENGERS is one of those ten-a-penny, kid friendly horror films we're seeing more and more of these days as the genre becomes more and more successful at the box office. This one is produced by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, under their Ghost House pictures banner, and also has Lou Arkoff acting as producer, so at least it has some heavyweight clout behind the scenes. Not that you'd really know it, though, as this is very much a predictable Hollywood horror film, utilising staples we've seen time and again in this genre.
I admit I wasn't too impressed once we got into the story of a family moving into a rural farmhouse that turns out to be haunted by some CGI spirits. Yadda yadda yadda, seen it all before, etc. etc. One thing kept me watching: the direction. It's a cut above the norm for this genre, and that's because Thai directing brothers Danny and Oxide Pang (they of THE EYE) have been imported in to give the film some extra style. It's a bold step and one that pays off dividends. This is a stylish, visually sumptuous film, with the Pang brothers reaffirming themselves as a couple of guys who know exactly what they're doing behind the camera. This alone makes THE MESSENGERS stand out from similar competition.
That's lucky, because the story ploughs very familiar territory. There are killer birds straight out of the Hitchcock classic, and creepy, ceiling-mounted ghosts not too dissimilar from stuff in THE EXORCIST 3 and THE GRUDGE. As this is PG-13 rated horror, there's little in the way of bloodshed or gruesomeness, but lots of jumpy scare sequences, some effective, some not. Although his presence is a cliché in itself, the use of a little toddler who can see the ghosts is one I liked a lot. The cast is nothing to write home about. Lead Kristen Stewart is a big thing nowadays thanks to appearing in TWILIGHT, and she does acquit herself well as a tough, sympathetic heroine type. Dylan McDermott isn't bad as the father, but his role is a lesser one and he seemingly disappears for long stretches. Worse of all is Penelope Ann Miller, who's just as unsympathetic as she's ever been in a film. I'm definitely not a fan of this actress.
The last reel twist is predictable in the extreme, and there are some unintentional laughs when somebody gets impaled on a pitchfork and seemingly suffers no ill effect from the severe wounding. At other times, genuine moments of atmosphere are built up, and there's nothing I disliked too strongly: THE MESSENGERS is what it is, and you're welcome to take it or leave it.
I admit I wasn't too impressed once we got into the story of a family moving into a rural farmhouse that turns out to be haunted by some CGI spirits. Yadda yadda yadda, seen it all before, etc. etc. One thing kept me watching: the direction. It's a cut above the norm for this genre, and that's because Thai directing brothers Danny and Oxide Pang (they of THE EYE) have been imported in to give the film some extra style. It's a bold step and one that pays off dividends. This is a stylish, visually sumptuous film, with the Pang brothers reaffirming themselves as a couple of guys who know exactly what they're doing behind the camera. This alone makes THE MESSENGERS stand out from similar competition.
That's lucky, because the story ploughs very familiar territory. There are killer birds straight out of the Hitchcock classic, and creepy, ceiling-mounted ghosts not too dissimilar from stuff in THE EXORCIST 3 and THE GRUDGE. As this is PG-13 rated horror, there's little in the way of bloodshed or gruesomeness, but lots of jumpy scare sequences, some effective, some not. Although his presence is a cliché in itself, the use of a little toddler who can see the ghosts is one I liked a lot. The cast is nothing to write home about. Lead Kristen Stewart is a big thing nowadays thanks to appearing in TWILIGHT, and she does acquit herself well as a tough, sympathetic heroine type. Dylan McDermott isn't bad as the father, but his role is a lesser one and he seemingly disappears for long stretches. Worse of all is Penelope Ann Miller, who's just as unsympathetic as she's ever been in a film. I'm definitely not a fan of this actress.
The last reel twist is predictable in the extreme, and there are some unintentional laughs when somebody gets impaled on a pitchfork and seemingly suffers no ill effect from the severe wounding. At other times, genuine moments of atmosphere are built up, and there's nothing I disliked too strongly: THE MESSENGERS is what it is, and you're welcome to take it or leave it.
Sometimes, It's a Good Idea to Shoot the Messenger
w00f3 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.
The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.
Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."
The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.
Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."
Good fun ghost story
Danny_G138 May 2008
Well made ghost horror might not be the greatest movie ever made, but manages to entertain effectively.
Let us first of all say that this movie does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a ghost story and never pretends to be anything else. Anyone looking for a highbrow horror tale here can look elsewhere.
Getting back to the story though, and a family with a mysterious past move to a new home in the middle of the country, a home with a chequered history of its own, and it is not long before daughter Jess encounters the secrets of the house...
Husband Roy is desperate to make a go of this new life, by making a successful harvest with the fertile soil in the fields next to where they now live, and despite some troubles between mother and daughter it seems that they are going to try putting their problems behind them.
The house has other ideas though.
The Messengers makes no apology for what it is - an old-fashioned ghost story with a hint of horror and which benefits from a slightly shallow plot to aid with fast story telling and scares. Yeah, it's not exactly earth shatteringly terrifying but it does a better job of building tension than most of its peers.
Its special effects are reasonably decent, and never look too fake bar bar one single occasion in the cellar.
The acting too is acceptable and does the job - Kristen Stewart does her best with the material and produces what the role requires.
But the fun here is with the overall feel of the movie - it just works as long as you don't try to expect too much from it.
The only oddity is 'Cigarette Smoking Man' from X-Files William B Davis making an unnecessary and pointless appearance twice as a real estate broker - a side story which was totally inept and served no purpose and gave the actor all of 20 seconds of screen time.
That aside, good movie and worth seeing as long as you don't expect more than it is.
Let us first of all say that this movie does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a ghost story and never pretends to be anything else. Anyone looking for a highbrow horror tale here can look elsewhere.
Getting back to the story though, and a family with a mysterious past move to a new home in the middle of the country, a home with a chequered history of its own, and it is not long before daughter Jess encounters the secrets of the house...
Husband Roy is desperate to make a go of this new life, by making a successful harvest with the fertile soil in the fields next to where they now live, and despite some troubles between mother and daughter it seems that they are going to try putting their problems behind them.
The house has other ideas though.
The Messengers makes no apology for what it is - an old-fashioned ghost story with a hint of horror and which benefits from a slightly shallow plot to aid with fast story telling and scares. Yeah, it's not exactly earth shatteringly terrifying but it does a better job of building tension than most of its peers.
Its special effects are reasonably decent, and never look too fake bar bar one single occasion in the cellar.
The acting too is acceptable and does the job - Kristen Stewart does her best with the material and produces what the role requires.
But the fun here is with the overall feel of the movie - it just works as long as you don't try to expect too much from it.
The only oddity is 'Cigarette Smoking Man' from X-Files William B Davis making an unnecessary and pointless appearance twice as a real estate broker - a side story which was totally inept and served no purpose and gave the actor all of 20 seconds of screen time.
That aside, good movie and worth seeing as long as you don't expect more than it is.
Not outstanding but OK
cynthia-boras19 January 2017
Some bits lack some logic. It is nothing unusual. Probably not the potential for an all time favourite but I wasn't too disappointed.
A family tries to start a new life in the gold digging business of sunflower seeds. Who wouldn't spend twenty years of savings for that opportunity on a run down farm without knowing anything about the place?!
Regarding the age, the little boy (aged 3 or something like that) did well.
The daughter seemed to be stronger in character than the mother. Character of the mother was a bit flat. The story could have been a bit more elaborated. Seemed to rush in the end.
The film borrows from other movies like Amityville. At least no exorcist or priest involved to my surprise. It didn't tick every cliché box possible. You get at least some scares and a decent film.
All in all, not too bad if your expectations are not too high. If you don't like it that much, give at least some credit for the crows. Bonus points for those who are going to count them.
A family tries to start a new life in the gold digging business of sunflower seeds. Who wouldn't spend twenty years of savings for that opportunity on a run down farm without knowing anything about the place?!
Regarding the age, the little boy (aged 3 or something like that) did well.
The daughter seemed to be stronger in character than the mother. Character of the mother was a bit flat. The story could have been a bit more elaborated. Seemed to rush in the end.
The film borrows from other movies like Amityville. At least no exorcist or priest involved to my surprise. It didn't tick every cliché box possible. You get at least some scares and a decent film.
All in all, not too bad if your expectations are not too high. If you don't like it that much, give at least some credit for the crows. Bonus points for those who are going to count them.
Yeah.... No.
banchi3 February 2007
Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.
First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.
Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.
If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.
First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.
Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.
If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.
The Crows Have More Brains Than Anyone Else In This Sorry Film!
liberalgems13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!
Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)
A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!
I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!
Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)
A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!
I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!
A Decent Workaday Horror
lesallen-6826816 May 2020
As another reviewer has already observed... "I enjoyed this movie... does what it says on the tin". Credible cast, proficiently directed and shot. The movie holds your attention and maintains a good pace with adequate suspense and surprises.
I wouldn't have demanded my money back.
A lazy horror film that is filled with the usual clichés
christian12320 February 2007
After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.
The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.
The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.
The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10
The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.
The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.
The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10
Pretty scary for the non-jaded
xyzzzzzzz26 April 2014
Just watched this on TV (didn't spend $20+ at the theater like many of the other reviewers). First, I must admit to being a real lightweight when it comes to scary movies! If the genre is listed as "horror", I do NOT watch it (but I do like a good "thriller", which is what my listings called "The Messengers"). Therefore, I am not extremely jaded on this subject -- which, in my opinion, the previous reviewers are! That being said, I thought this was a pretty good movie and plenty scary. I "jumped" a LOT of times and also actually felt my spine tingle and the hairs on the back of my neck rise quite a lot of times.
Flaws do pretty much abound in the plot and directing, but I thought the acting was top-notch and I had no complaints about the cinematography. I never saw any "mics" in the picture, either!
Flaws do pretty much abound in the plot and directing, but I thought the acting was top-notch and I had no complaints about the cinematography. I never saw any "mics" in the picture, either!
Decent But Heavily Derivative.
drownsoda9010 February 2007
"The Messengers" revolves around a young teenager, Jess (Kristen Stewart), who moves out into rural North Dakota with her dad (Dylan McDermott), her mother (Penelope Ann Miller), and her little brother, to a sunflower farm. The house they move into is run-down and very spooky, and Jess isn't happy about the entire situation. From the moment they arrive to the house, Jess begins to have strange experiences and see very bizarre things. Her younger brother also sees things that nobody else can, and Jess is concerned. A man who shows up out of nowhere (John Corbett) to work at the farm, and the family becomes pretty close with him as well. But the increasingly frightening supernatural experiences that only Jess seems to see get more and more violent, and seem to have a relation to something that happened in the house years ago.
With some obvious similarities to "The Grudge" (and just about every ghost story you can think of), "The Messengers" is an extremely derivative ghost tale that manages to hold itself up without becoming unbearably watchable. The story itself is your typical haunted-house yarn - family moves into house, strange experiences begin that can only be seen by the children or our main character, seems to have a relation to a horrible incident that happened in the house years before. Full of dark and shadowy rooms, ghost-like figures with ridiculously orchestrated jerky movements (reminiscent of "The Grudge"), mostly useless "jump" scares, and a small child character who can see things others can't, "The Messengers" is clichéd, no doubting that. I wasn't afraid once during this film, because I knew when to expect all of the scary moments. Maybe it's because I've seen films like this one too many times, but all I can say for sure is that I didn't find this film scary.
While this film is heavily clichéd (which is probably it's strongest negative point), I still managed to enjoy the majority of it. While the story is typical, it managed to keep my attention and I was at least interested. The cinematography really soared in this film. Everything was very nice looking and the atmosphere was great. The backdrop of the house and the surrounding land really made it feel like it was in the complete middle of nowhere, and the old house itself, while it was your typical haunted house, was admittedly spooky looking. The acting was really good for the most part. Kristen Stewart is the lead and is very talented and convincing. I'd previously seen her in "Panic Room" at a younger age, and even then she was good. I can see her going places. Dylan McDermott and John Corbett are both very good as well, and Penelope Ann Miller, while not giving the best performance of the cast, was decent enough. I can't say anything too horrible about the acting though.
Overall, "The Messengers" is your typical, cliché-ridden modern ghost story, and it borrows so much from other recent films of it's type (which a lot of these films seem to do), that it becomes another one of those "we've seen it all before" horror movies. It doesn't offer much of anything new for the genre, but it was at least watchable. If you want some cheap scares and a very few number of eerie moments, you'll probably enjoy this. But mostly, this film is one big cliché. Enjoyable if you don't take it too seriously though, but just average. 5/10.
With some obvious similarities to "The Grudge" (and just about every ghost story you can think of), "The Messengers" is an extremely derivative ghost tale that manages to hold itself up without becoming unbearably watchable. The story itself is your typical haunted-house yarn - family moves into house, strange experiences begin that can only be seen by the children or our main character, seems to have a relation to a horrible incident that happened in the house years before. Full of dark and shadowy rooms, ghost-like figures with ridiculously orchestrated jerky movements (reminiscent of "The Grudge"), mostly useless "jump" scares, and a small child character who can see things others can't, "The Messengers" is clichéd, no doubting that. I wasn't afraid once during this film, because I knew when to expect all of the scary moments. Maybe it's because I've seen films like this one too many times, but all I can say for sure is that I didn't find this film scary.
While this film is heavily clichéd (which is probably it's strongest negative point), I still managed to enjoy the majority of it. While the story is typical, it managed to keep my attention and I was at least interested. The cinematography really soared in this film. Everything was very nice looking and the atmosphere was great. The backdrop of the house and the surrounding land really made it feel like it was in the complete middle of nowhere, and the old house itself, while it was your typical haunted house, was admittedly spooky looking. The acting was really good for the most part. Kristen Stewart is the lead and is very talented and convincing. I'd previously seen her in "Panic Room" at a younger age, and even then she was good. I can see her going places. Dylan McDermott and John Corbett are both very good as well, and Penelope Ann Miller, while not giving the best performance of the cast, was decent enough. I can't say anything too horrible about the acting though.
Overall, "The Messengers" is your typical, cliché-ridden modern ghost story, and it borrows so much from other recent films of it's type (which a lot of these films seem to do), that it becomes another one of those "we've seen it all before" horror movies. It doesn't offer much of anything new for the genre, but it was at least watchable. If you want some cheap scares and a very few number of eerie moments, you'll probably enjoy this. But mostly, this film is one big cliché. Enjoyable if you don't take it too seriously though, but just average. 5/10.
Disappointing American debut for the Pang Brothers.
JosephLee4117 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A mini review, as I don't feel like doing a full one.
I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the Pang Brothers American debut. After giving me The Eye and The Eye II, both really well-done horror films that are creepy as hell with good stories, I thought this would be just as good. It turns out it's a watered down mess with ghosts that literally have no point being there and more horror clichés than I could count. Spooky old farm? Check. Kids see things and no one will believe them? Check. Pointless jump scares? Check. Jerky motion ghosts that crawl a lot? Check. Creepy kid? Check. The list goes on and on. TRY SOMETHING NEW! I give it a 1 & 1/2 out of five, because at least the plot twist was something relatively new, even if it negates the need for ghosts. The visuals were nice too. But I'm just very disappointed overall.
I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the Pang Brothers American debut. After giving me The Eye and The Eye II, both really well-done horror films that are creepy as hell with good stories, I thought this would be just as good. It turns out it's a watered down mess with ghosts that literally have no point being there and more horror clichés than I could count. Spooky old farm? Check. Kids see things and no one will believe them? Check. Pointless jump scares? Check. Jerky motion ghosts that crawl a lot? Check. Creepy kid? Check. The list goes on and on. TRY SOMETHING NEW! I give it a 1 & 1/2 out of five, because at least the plot twist was something relatively new, even if it negates the need for ghosts. The visuals were nice too. But I'm just very disappointed overall.
The less things change, they are a repetition.
spinoff7526 May 2012
I saw this right now in Cinemax, five years later of the cinema screening. I saw it because the directors and screen-players were the same of The Ring, it was a bonus.
The intro in black and white (a flashback of the previous owners of the house) is really good, I get stuck to my TV. Scary, well done effects, music, cinematography. So far so good.
Then when the actual family moves in, well it's all the same I saw countless times in many, many, many... and I mean: many movies.
The abandoned house, the new family move in it, the noises, the visions, the ghosts, are really a cliché. You can play with clichés, but put a new dress on them. Don't trace them like using onion paper.
I'm not surprised the DVD is only $1.95 in amazon.com A bargain but with no salt and pepper for all horror fans like me.
The intro in black and white (a flashback of the previous owners of the house) is really good, I get stuck to my TV. Scary, well done effects, music, cinematography. So far so good.
Then when the actual family moves in, well it's all the same I saw countless times in many, many, many... and I mean: many movies.
The abandoned house, the new family move in it, the noises, the visions, the ghosts, are really a cliché. You can play with clichés, but put a new dress on them. Don't trace them like using onion paper.
I'm not surprised the DVD is only $1.95 in amazon.com A bargain but with no salt and pepper for all horror fans like me.
Killing the 'Messenger'
editor-2992 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. "The Messengers," the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed "Sixth Sense," and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.
Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.
"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.
The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.
The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.
Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.
But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart.
Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.
All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.
Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.
Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.
"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.
The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.
The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.
Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.
But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart.
Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.
All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.
Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.
Scary? No, But It Serves Its Purpose Of Entertaining
ccthemovieman-118 July 2007
If you aren't expecting some super-scary or gross film, just a mild ghost-type story, this fits the bill just fine. That's all I expected and I entertained for an hour-and-a-half. Is this some award-winning film? No, Is is genuinely scary? No, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as all these reviews say it is here, either.
What I liked best about this movie was the photography. It was stylishly filmed and I enjoyed the bold colors, decent direction and nice rural scenery. Who doesn't like looking at large groups of sunflowers?
I had no trouble with any of the characters, either. Since it was partly one of those "you don't listen to me," teen girl flicks, I expected some snotty kid was Kirsten Stewart was fine as 16- year-old "Jess." Dylan McDermott and Penelope Ann Miller played nice enough parents, too.
The twist near the end was good after that was revealed, you got the normal clichés with the climactic action scene. That was kind of cheesy, I admit, but most of the film was just fine with me. For what I expected, I have no complaints. It's a decent flick.
What I liked best about this movie was the photography. It was stylishly filmed and I enjoyed the bold colors, decent direction and nice rural scenery. Who doesn't like looking at large groups of sunflowers?
I had no trouble with any of the characters, either. Since it was partly one of those "you don't listen to me," teen girl flicks, I expected some snotty kid was Kirsten Stewart was fine as 16- year-old "Jess." Dylan McDermott and Penelope Ann Miller played nice enough parents, too.
The twist near the end was good after that was revealed, you got the normal clichés with the climactic action scene. That was kind of cheesy, I admit, but most of the film was just fine with me. For what I expected, I have no complaints. It's a decent flick.
A Surprise
McBitter1 April 2007
This pg-13 horror film was very much advertised for the teen population but as I saw the film I noticed it wasn't like most watered down pg-13 horror movies. It was actually quite better.
The score was very good and added great suspense. Most of the theater, including myself, jumped a lot during this movie. The acting was another thing though. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great. The only actress who I thought were very passable was the mother who seemed hacked up on pills and alcohol during the whole thing.
'The Messengers' has some cool scenes and great suspense that makes it overall very enjoyable. So I do recommend this to anyone who wants to watch a movie when nothing else good is out.
The score was very good and added great suspense. Most of the theater, including myself, jumped a lot during this movie. The acting was another thing though. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great. The only actress who I thought were very passable was the mother who seemed hacked up on pills and alcohol during the whole thing.
'The Messengers' has some cool scenes and great suspense that makes it overall very enjoyable. So I do recommend this to anyone who wants to watch a movie when nothing else good is out.
Give me a break!
thickbread152 February 2007
Was this movie being serious? I have seen some bad horror films in my time, but this one.... It has pretty much every single horror movie cliché. The creepy kids (preferably Asian), scary animals, dark spooky basement, "rebel" teenage hero, and the parents that won't believe them. Let us not forget that supposedly shocking plot twist. Which I knew what it was within the first twenty minutes. The acting was, at best, atrocious. Please save the money, do not waste your time on this Amityville formulated excuse for a movie. Spend the hour and a half doing something more entertaining....like smashing a large rock on your foot repeatedly.
Don't GO
twyler86-121 February 2007
Personally, I'm not usually the type to want to jump online and start bad-mouthing a movie. However, i felt compelled to save other people from waisting their money on an almost completely unoriginal movie with sub-par acting. To be perfectly honest, the story is just dumb anyways. Family moving to a haunted house in the middle of nowhere... teenager that screwed up in the past, so nobody believes him/her.
The movie has been overdone time and time again and i hope this one quickly gets lost with the other hundreds in some movie rental horror section. Trust me on this one, this film does not deserve your hard-earned money.
The movie has been overdone time and time again and i hope this one quickly gets lost with the other hundreds in some movie rental horror section. Trust me on this one, this film does not deserve your hard-earned money.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
