Scarecrows (1988)
1/10
Poking yourself in the eyes is quicker... probably more pleasurable, too
19 August 2009
I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.

Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title "Scarecrows" was sufficient.

Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?

Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.

Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.

So, like the summary says, skip "Scarecrows" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed