Scarecrow

If you are not a fan of low-budget, micro-budget or zero-budget movies then stay away. Stay FAR away!!! If at the video store you see a box with a creepy looking scarecrow holding a sickle and you read the back of the box, don't expect a masterpiece.

I am a rabid horror fan...always have been. And yes, I tend you beat the hell out of most of them when I review them. Hell, I write these kinds of films (see TOWER OF BLOOD - that's one of mine). However, I appreciate the time and effort that is put into making these types of movies.

SCARECROW is by far and large a bad movie. Laughable script, 1-dimensional plastic characters, poor & sloppy direction...this one has it all.

What saves this movie? The photography! The DP (director of photography) does an excellent job shooting this movie. Several angles and at times how the scarecrow is shot are really creepy. Kudos to him! Also, the editing ain't half bad either! What I did not like, besides the direction and plot, is the scarecrow! To me, horror films should not be comedic! That isn't' to say that you can't have a good Comedy/Horror flick! Trust me, I've been plenty - but done much better than this. That is, however not to say this was purely a Comedy/Horror...I think the director was trying to make a straight horror film. Did he fail miserably. The wise-cracking, somersaulting, gymnastics crap was ridiculous!!! With most movies like this, there was so much potential that was lost because of directors such as the one behind this mess. If you watch the making-of on the DVD, you will hear the director name-drop like there ain't no tomorrow. He says he draws his inspiration from some of the greats in horror history (Wes Craven, John Carpenter, etc.) and Dario Argento....wait, what? Yup, he even dedicated this film the the Italian Horror Legend! I wonder how Mr. Argento would feel about this? Now, Mr. Argento is on my list of all time greats, but I don't see the connection to his films to this one. Oh well! While the director is busy dropping these names, no where does he explain how they inspire him. Nor does he cite references to these greats filmmakers and what about them inspired him.

Overall, a down-right piece of schlock which should not be taken seriously. Just enjoy some of the inventive death scene and gore! Don't walk away being upset cause you wasted your time...You knew what you were getting in to when you rented it!

I'm a fifty-something woman who's still impressed by our high-tech world. I love music on CD's, microwave ovens, cable TV, computers, the Internet -- and my DVD player.

These wonderful consumer items were undreamed of when I was growing up, which is why I'm so disgusted by some of the alleged movies that get a DVD release.

And I really hate it when I unwittingly end up renting one them. "Scarecrow," for instance. I guess I'm a fool for a halfway competently designed DVD box, or something.

This flick is an amateur production through and through -- poorly written and acted, boringly predictable. And criminally lame with the jokes -- for instance, one guy is killed when the scarecrow rams an ear of corn in his ear. Get it? Get it?

What a total waste of technology in the 21st century.

I couldn't sleep for months after watching Scarecrow. Emmanuel Itier is a brilliant new director/writer and I'd love to see more of his work. Roxanna Bina is totally plausible as Stephanie. After seeing this chilling film I am now totally scared of Scarecrows since Emmanuel Itier's Scarecrow bears little resemblance to the friendly Wizard of Oz variety who only wants a brain. This scary Scarecrow clearly has a deeply evil brain and is not afraid to use it. No birds are going to sit on Itier's Scarecrow for long before being frightened out of their feathers...Not for the faint of heart....

scarecrow.

wow.

this is maybe the most awful movie i have ever seen. (and that statement comes from a person who very much enjoys bad movies) the real problem here is that it wasn't so bad it was funny...it's just so bad that it's bad.

scarecrow is the story of a 35 year old high school kid who gets picked on by a bunch of 27 year old high school kids (who inexplicably call him 'scarecrow'). anyway the kid (lester) has a miserable life, is a bad artist, and i'm thinking is mildly retarded.

everyone hates him and makes his life rough except for judy (really the only good thing about the whole movie--and not for her acting ability). lester gets upset and is seen for a brief disconnected moment hitting a scarecrow that looks like a person in a plastic suit, yelling "i whish i was like you so i didn't feel anything." why did he do this? because apparently all the kids in this town hang out in cornfields with scarecrows...who else was he to take his frustration out on?

one night lester's mother's new boyfriend gets mad and kills him in a cornfield right below that same scarecrow. some zappy camera effects occur and lester is reincarnated as the scarecrow. --and i could be wrong here, but the whole killer scarecrow thing seems like it was done before...oh yeah in jeepers creepers 2.

anyway, lester (as the scarecrow) comes to life every once in a while and does acrobatic flips and then kills people. it would make sense that he should kill all the people that wronged him while he was alive, but rather he kills just random characters that have nothing to do with the story.

as a matter of fact, they introduce characters like the gravedigger and his daughter's boyfriend (who have no ties to the story whatsoever) just to be killed.

interestingly enough the really old high school kids all of a sudden are not in high school, the town "has a sinister evil," and somehow these things lead the world's worst sheriff to the conclusion that lester is the scarecrow.

too bad he dies before that could even matter.

unprovoked the scarecrow attacks judy (the only person who was nice to him while he was alive and the only person who went to his funeral), blaming her for his death. there is a short and crappy final fight scene here, taking place on and in a pickup truck that i'm pretty sure isn't actually moving at any point. and then there is a surprise ending that makes even less sense...coming as no surprise at all.

what is really striking about the whole thing is that this film was made completely straight faced.

watch the 'making of' featurette.

the whole cast is talking about effects and acting and plot points as if this movie is to be admired for it's technical prowess. the only thing that makes sense is when the director babbles lloyd kaufmann's name...

now this is by no means up to the caliber of a troma film, but at least i can see where they were going...(how could tiffany shepis be in this movie?) at least troma movies are funny and clever in a sort of tasteless way, this was just miserable.

the acting was terrible, dialog atrocious, editing uber-crappy, effects nearly non-existent....but worst of all this movie was boring. and that is a b-horror movie sin.

i think the icing on the cake though, was the fact that this abomination was dedicated to dario argento, george romero, stephen king, wes craven, and more.

if any of these people ever saw their names at the end of scarecrow, they'd kill themselves just so that they could roll in their graves.

this movie makes roger corman look like alfred hitchcock.

Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it.

Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like college—go figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--Amazingly funny movie—even if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.

--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 bin—so it's only a little overpriced.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.

--Sounds like they put some effort into the music—but it doesn't really fit the movie—and isn't all that good.

The Bad:

--Terrible, terrible acting.

--Another slasher let-down with sexy women—none of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??

--Ridiculous story.

--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.

--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.

--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at random—you never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.

The Ugly:

--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of… well, all that other crap.

--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" series—all of which are better than this atrocity.

--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious here—it's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hell—but I've never heard more asinine banter—even in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.

--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.

Memorable Scene:

--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."

Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funny—so bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10

Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 3/10

Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.

www.ResidentHazard.com