MovieChat Forums > Scarecrows (1991) Discussion > This movie was terrible

This movie was terrible

posted 20 years ago by Ennder
36 replies | jump to latest

As a huge horror fan who especially likes older school horror I can't imagine how this has a 6.8 rating. This movie was terrible. The acting was bad, the effects were bad, the lighting was bad, the story was dumb, the scarecrows weren't scary at all. This felt like an R rated graphic version of a goosebumps episode more than a horror movie. This thing is almost as bad as the last scarecrow movie I watched which was called Dark Harvest... ALMOST. I just don't get why all the positive reviews for such a pile of dreck.

[–] RobsBottin 20 years ago

Are you quite sure you were watching Scarecrows directed by William Wesley? The effects are top notch considering it was made on a budget the size of a an amoeba. Wesley created the perfect atmosphere, ok so it was shot at night, which makes for a far more effective horror movie in my opinion, what you don't see is possibly scarier than seeing some ghoulish clown with a kitchen knife lumbering towards it's victims. Wesley did a great job with Scarecrows.

9/10

DVD on the way mid-2005.

[–] jerzy1 20 years ago

"DVD on the way mid-2005."

Are you certain? Any more info on this as to whether it will be the R-rated or Unrated version, Full Screen or Widescreen etc, whether it will be a foreign import and which studio is releasing it.

Where did you get your info from? I have the PAL UK 18 certificated VHS release which runs 79 mins approx. Unsure whether this was the rated or unrated version, although I suspect the former.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fritali04 20 years ago

I haven't seen this movie in years (since the 80's I think) but I remember it being really creepy when I saw it. The isolated, dark, nighttime setting and the view through the nightvision goggles of the scarecrow standing in the field staring right back was really freaky. I'll have to find it and see if holds up now or if I was just a dumb teenager easily freaked out.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fritali04 19 years ago

Thanks for your take on this movie...sounds like porn-quality acting lol. I guess it's all atmosphere. I love a good creepy setting but I agree that it loses a lot of it's power when you have stupid humans saying stupid things. The only positive there is you really want the monsters to kill them all and make it look very painful lol.

[–] wawacore 18 years ago

This movie was not bad at all. Some of the acting was ameaturish on a few occasions, but not enough to make you laugh at it. I dig this movie alot. I first saw it when I was about 15 and still like it, especially for what they Scarecrows start doing with the money and their victims.

I noticed alot of people mention Bava, Argento and Fulci reguarding this film. I'd watch Scarecrows before any of their films, anyday. Those three names SCREAM "overrated". Bava's "Rabid Dogs" was pretty good, though.

All in taste I suppose.

[–] smerd_70 18 years ago

Don't let sethyeah influence your memory on the movie, after all like all of us it's just sethyeah's opinion...Watch Scarecrows again because only you can be the judge of what you like or don't.

[–] ericaloveshorror 18 years ago

I just watched it for the first time last night, and I thought it was pretty good. It wasn't the best horror movie by all means, but it wasn't the worst either.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SkulleryMaid 18 years ago

i think a lot of people saw this as kids so they remember being scared. i know the horror movies i saw as a kid will always seem the scariest to me, no matter how many times i see them nor how derivative they may be.

watching this movie for the 1st time now is not the same experience.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10564) a year ago

i think a lot of people saw this as kids so they remember being scared.

But I was a very jaded kid.

[–] brianmack65 18 years ago

I agree, i watched this pile of manure only after reading the mostly positive comments here and seeing that it has a 6+ rating. I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 50 would be entertained by this. It is absolute crap. Not scary in the least, and the acting is just dreadful, to put these "actors" on the same level as high school students putting on a play would be an insult to high school students.

I am a fan of cheap b-movie horrors, you know going in that most of them will have weak acting and effects, but this one goes beyond that, the entire premise is just so stupid to begin with, i can't even be bothered to go into greater detail about all the sucky parts, just be warned people, if you have a working brain you'll find this to be a 90 minute or so waste of you life that you can't get back. AVOID THIS!!!

[–] Tikkin 18 years ago

The acting wasnt that bad. Not the best, but Ive seen MUCH worse in much BETTER horror films than this. So the acting is neither here nor there.

For me it was mainly the lack of light that spoilt this film. You can barely see whats happening most of the time. It could have been much better and I also think the people here have overrated it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Oliver-50 18 years ago

I had fairly high hopes after seeing the 6.4 rating on here, so I got pretty psyched to watch it. Big piece of crap though. It amazes me how this can get above the 4.0 mark. I give it a 1. Decent premise for a horror film, but nothing else - nothing exciting, some really lame acting, poor writing - I didn't give a damn about the characters. Not even enough gore to please the slasher fan in me.

Gandhi baked is good.

[–] knutandredale 16 years ago

Same here. God, it sucked so hard!!! Why is this a cult favourite? It's not scary, it's not funny...it just sucks!

[–] frederic_dussault 17 years ago

I totally agree with you! I bought this mess for 10$ and god I was happy than it didn't cost more! There is so much good horror films around and this one is just totally boring.

[–] nitebelow 17 years ago

Terrific, terrific film.

People who diss it, what's your idea of good, low-budget horror?

[–] Hellbound67 17 years ago

I won't say the movie is horrible but it seemed more a military movie or a military videogame for the Xbox than a horror flick. Can someone tell me why the guy who stole the money didn't just chuck his headset instead of listening to the rest of the team threatening him?

[–] TheHardTarget6 17 years ago

I thought it was a classic solid 80's horror film. The film left some holes in reasoning and plot...but i thought it was cool. Def worth buying. The dvd cover kicks ass*!

"Karate training is good, but contact fighting like this is the only way to prepare for the street"

[–] frederic_dussault 16 years ago

Well I don't have a totally clear definition of a good/low-budget horror - it depends of a lot of factors - but I just don't get the point about "Scarecrows". The characters are unlikeable, the plot doesn't make any sense (what's the force behind the scarecrows?), the horror scenes are not very scary... It's also VERY slow and it's not bad enough to be funny.

Technically speaking I think it's a very well-made film and I'm not complaining about that. But with a better script and more interesting characters it could have been at least a nice experience. It wasn't the case for me.

[–] knutandredale 16 years ago

"Evil Dead II", "Dog Soldiers"....

[–] TheDraytonSawyer 17 years ago

Yeah this movie was pretty boring. It was just too slow. It got better near the end kinda. I liked the parts with the Scarecrows, but the rest of the movie I found stupid. It's still better than Scarecrow though thats for sure.

R.I.P. Uncle Steve

[–] knutandredale 16 years ago

"Scarecrow" with Gene Hackman and Al Pacino?? That's a *beep* masterpiece man!!

[–] cyanide37 16 years ago

I love this movie. The acting sucks, which is funny, and the gore effects are great. The part where the fingers get bit off and then wiggle on the floor was badass. And i loved when they started rippin' the dude apart for the money inside him. The greed concept was carried out pretty well. I also got a feeling of "Stockholm Syndrome" from the girl after her dad got iced.
I don't understand why people criticize the "plot" so much though.
I feel as if the intention of the movie was to portray one specific situation/scenario. The idea of a "motive" or reasoning behind the scarecrows is stupid since it's fiction and ANY explanation is gonna be preposterous anyway. Who really cares? There is a plot, it just doesn't contain full explanations for a lot of the occurrences.
A bunch of para-militaristic people steal money, one winds up being a traitor, and tries to take all the cash. The rest of the group chase after him, constantly trying to get their money back, and the place they wind up at happens to be infested with killer scarecrows. The scarecrows then live up to their quality of "killer" and slaughter each thief, one by one. The End

Are you talkin' to me?
- Travis Bickle

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Joan_Ferguson 14 years ago

It was a fun movie. Plot was wafer thin, the actors couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, but it was one of those movies where it was so bad it's good.