Scar

First of all, there are several movies called SCAR. This is one from 2005 and it is best avoided. A young man and woman visit a remote wooded location right out of EVIL DEAD to try and figure out who killed the guy's buddy the year before. There they encounter mother and daughter ghosts. Throw in a nasty sheriff (Estevez) and a wacky local hotel owner (Wallace) to ease the boredom and stupidity of it all. Incredibly badly acted and scripted. It is embarrassing to see the wonderful Dee Wallace in this, although she gives it what little bit of class it has. And I assume she wouldn't be in it if she had had a better offer at the time.

(written September 2006)

Sadly this just is not any good at all. Another low budget horror flick that's not worth your time unless you eat this stuff up. The story looked interesting and original from the back of the box, so I popped it in, eager for a good suspense/thriller movie. But no, it's not good, at all, and if you put it in expecting a good movie then you will be thoroughly disappointed. The acting is bad all around, especially Tom (Randy Wayne), who can't manage to put any real feeling into anything he does, or, even worse, Fred (Paul Darrigo), who's horrible "acting" was actually enough to make me cringe in embarrassment.

The plot goes nowhere, and the whole 'mystery' is absolutely ridiculous when it's revealed near the end. The blood mostly looks fake, but there is some good gore (albeit the fact that it's pointless and does not help the story at all). I can't even say this movie was a fun experience, except for Jenny (Ashley Nelson), who was a decent actor at most, and very good looking. Served as something to look at, especially since she was often clad in short shorts or tight white T-shirts. Probably the only redeeming factor of this film.

Just came back from a movie night with my friends. We rented a movie and we were ready to rumble with a horror movie. We were ready to be scared! But already from the first couple of minutes of watching Scar we found out that this wasn't as scary as we hoped it would be.

The first thing you notice at the very beginning of the movie is how bad the quality is and it seems like its made with a cheap camera from a crappy store. Another thing you notice is that the cast can't act!

Although this movie wasn't the best when it came to quality, it sure was well worth seeing it. All through the movie the room was filled with laughter and we had heaps of fun when we were making fun of the actors, plot and the whole movie:) And we actually screamed a lot during the movie because of a couple of scary things.

If you're looking for a horror movie- DO NOT WATCH THIS ONE! If you're looking for a good laugh and a good time with your friends-WATCH IT! I won't see this movie again- ever. But I actually had a good time watching it, because it was heaps of fun! HaHa. Good Luck!

Agree with the poor quality production and actors, but it was mildly entertaining. A bit cheesy-horror, but then again, isn't that a genre of its own? Plenty of cheesy-horror buffs will like it. Sound was similar to telephone-quality, and some scenes look like 8mm, and cheap film too..some scenes look like they were dubbed straight from a camcorder. I have seen worse in my time, however.

It will not please the Spielberg audience, but those who like "Evil Dead" and such may like it.

One more thing, take a look at the DVD cover and purchase accordingly! If the cover looks cheesy (which it does), then don't expect Jerry Bruckheimer or Tom Cruise

I usually can't make it through a bad movie. I turn it off and go on to another, but this one the actors made me want to finish.

I bought about 10 movies that K-MART had out because of Halloween and they all looked like they would be low budget crap, but I am a horror freak and love a lot of the low budget crap. I watched one of them called 13 SECONDS and it was one of the worst movies acting wise that I'd ever seen.

I was reluctant to watch this one, but decided I would give it a try and I set there watching thinking they focused way too much on a story that was stupid, and was very laughable.

The acting was bad for the most part, the directing was dull and I can't say enough about how dumb the story was but thats all the bad things I have to say about it.

The production wasn't as low budget as I expected. The sets and such were okay. The special effects weren't Tom Savini great or anything, but they weren't that shabby.

I love Dee Wallace-Stone and have the highest respects for her, so it was good seeing her, shes a great actress. Joe Estevez is likable, but I don't think he's a great actor, just simply unique and I like that about him. Charlie Sheen is the only one in that family that has real talent if you ask me - Martin's okay but no better than Joe. Dee and Joe couldn't hold this movie up with their smaller parts, but star Randy Wayne did a great job keeping this stupid story interesting.

Randy Wayne is a guy I'd seen on a few MTV shows and then forgotten about. He is a natural in my book, he doesn't seem like a guy thats just reading lines, he seems to play the part well. There's a few lines in this movie that I thought he could've done better, but thats up to the director to re-do it. He's going to play in the new DUKES OF HAZARD - THE BEGINNING movie coming out in 2007 and I am glad to see that. The new movie is cast much better than the last. Johnny Knoxville and that other idiot from American Pie sucked as Bo and Luke and made the Dukes of Hazard movie one of the most worthless films I have ever watched. Lets hope Randy Wayne does a much better job and helps make that movie better, like he did for Scar.

If You like any of the actors I've mentioned - watch this film, other wise don't waste your time - its pretty bad.