239 reviews
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.
- daggersineyes
- Aug 6, 2013
- Permalink
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.
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.
- kuroneko_kitty
- Feb 4, 2007
- Permalink
"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!
- jonwalters-1
- Apr 10, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- Quinoa1984
- Feb 12, 2007
- Permalink
- claudio_carvalho
- Feb 17, 2008
- Permalink
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.
- hate_mcangry
- Jun 5, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- lesallen-68268
- May 15, 2020
- Permalink
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.
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.
- cynthia-boras
- Jan 18, 2017
- Permalink
- liberalgems
- Feb 12, 2007
- Permalink
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.
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!
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
- christian123
- Feb 19, 2007
- Permalink
- Leofwine_draca
- Aug 27, 2016
- Permalink
"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.
- drownsoda90
- Feb 9, 2007
- Permalink
- JosephLee411
- Jun 6, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- editor-299
- Feb 1, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- ccthemovieman-1
- Jul 17, 2007
- Permalink
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.
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.
- thickbread15
- Feb 1, 2007
- Permalink
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.
- twyler86-1
- Feb 20, 2007
- Permalink