Should have stayed off DVD!
-
lauriescreams — 17 years ago(August 16, 2008 05:49 PM)
"You don't even get to see the robbery at the beginning. You hear about it on a radio broadcast."
I fail to see what a dramatisation of the robbery could have added to the film, apart from a clunky shift in tone. The robbery exists only to add character motivation, i.e. desperation and greed, which add to the dramatic tension and give the characters an excuse to hang around when fleeing would obviously be the wisest course of action.
"The explanation behind the scarecrows is hinted at but never fully explained."
Like you said yourself, that's okay. This is basically a film about zombies killing off people and stuffing them as scarecrows. Does the action really require an explanation. A group of people encounter a deadly unexpected force they do not understand. If anything, having the character snoop around and discover the origin of the scarecrows could easily come off as a tacked on maneuvre.
"zero character development"
Why do so many people assume that a film must necessarilly be about character development? This film follows a group of characters for a period spanning less than one night - how much do you expect their personalities to change? And for what it's worth, the film does feature character development - Corbin starts out as just a robber, but he develops a sense of responsibility towards Kellie and his actions become increasingly selfless. Kellie, on the other hand, starts out a defiant hostage, but the situation integrates her among her captors.
"unintelligible editing."
Unintelligible? How so? Was it difficult for you to follow the action? I had no trouble keeping up.
"Unfortunately, for all the talk, it had many more similarities than differences to the things we've grown to dislike bout the '80's horror film."
"We"? Who are "we"? Speak for yourself, buddy.
"I wanted so badly to like this movie."
I did too, and I was a bit disappointed when I saw it. I did find it decent, but all the raving reviews made me expect a better film than the one I saw. It improved on a second viewing, though. It's stylish, the headset dialogue is clever (I can easily tell Jack's voice from Curry's), and there are some good scares toward the end. It's not a perfect ten, but it's a technically competent, decidedly above average late eighties horror effort, and I can honestly say I enjoyed it. -
wrenage — 17 years ago(September 23, 2008 08:12 AM)
I just saw it and mostly agree with Gorbo.
I think the movie is one of those that can't live up to the hype. If one came across it on TV late at night with zero knowledge of it, it would be kind of interesting and perhaps fun to discover.
But going into the movie with a lot of "it's great" and "hidden gem" build up, it doesn't measure up.
So if you are off to watch it for the first time after hearing nothing but positives about it, take it all with a grain of salt. -
daedalus1337 — 17 years ago(December 25, 2008 05:15 AM)
Agreed, Gorbo. This one was better left forgotten. A few cool parts, but mostly crap. The score felt like it was out of a '50s horror movie. A better, creepier score could have made this a lot better as well.
I'll admit there was some cool gore. -
SoTyred — 16 years ago(January 31, 2010 04:49 PM)
I agree completely. The Netflix sleeve has this listed as a 'cult classic'. I am a HUGE horror fan and have NEVER heard of this film, but decided to give it a shot.
It's gotta be a pretty small cult.
1/10 (simply because there is not 0/10 optionthis film has ZERO redeeming qualities.)
Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens! Tombstone -
BartDudeInX — 15 years ago(May 15, 2010 01:44 AM)
Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I found "Scarecrows" to be a fun low-budget horror flick. The atmosphere was spooky, the scarecrows were creepy, the effects were above-average, it had a cool 80's vibe, and it was pretty entertaining overall.
Sure it's not a fcking Oscar contender or anything, but it was definitely better than the slew of ridiculous, glossy, overproduced remakes and sequels that have been shoved down our throats on a yearly basis. Most of those movies aren't even made by people who actually WANT to make horror films; instead they're thrown together by bottom line-minded producers. I wouldn't go as far as to say Scarecrows "should have stayed off DVD" because there are plenty of people who do like it and demanded that it be released on DVD.
For the record, these are horror films I've seen that are much worse than "Scarecrows":
Halloween II (remake)
Paranormal Activity
Soul Survivors
Alone In The Dark
Halloween (remake)
Black Xmas (remake)
Dreamcatcher
Leprechaun
Troll 2
The Happening
Psycho (remake)
The Fog (remake)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation
The Last Broadcast
The Mangler
Urban Legends: Final Cut
House of the Dead
Frogs
Hatchet
From Justin to Kelly
And if you want to see some REALLY bad scarecrow/horror films, check out the craptastic trilogy of Scarecrow, Scarecrow Slayer, and Scarecrow Gone Wild. By the end of that you'll be begging to watch "Scarecrows" instead. -
dragonkings01 — 14 years ago(March 04, 2012 11:02 PM)
It's a low budget horror movie from the 80's,
Ok you and a few others here are going out of your way to bash it and didn't like itok.
If your one of those that need someone to explain some random evil in a low budget horror film you are what's wrong with movie going audiences today.
If you expected more than what it was you were deluding yourself into not giving a old fashion horror story a fair chance.
It wasn't great, but it wasn't the worst thing out there, enjoyable for what it was.
If you think a lost movie shouldn't be on DVD just because you put too much stock in your own narrow opinions, you need a hug and a chill pill.
But like everyone else just my opinion.
Ok you didn't like the film,
But why so much hatred over a movie?
You need a man hug