Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Steineded How sad is this?

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

GL84 After a daring escape from a military base, a group of robbers comes upon a small, abandoned house in a cornfield, and after trying to make an escape find the scarecrows in the field are alive and hunting them down one by one forcing them to deal with the creatures.This might be a little bit undeserving of its status as a cult classic, but it's still genuinely creepy. One of the best things about this film is that it conjures up an effective and genuinely creepy atmosphere here with a lot to really like about it. This mainly comes from the mystery surrounding the scarecrows which is absolutely creepy, as nothing is really given about where they come from, who put them there and what they are, making this a rather intriguing offering with this fine set-up at the heart of the film creating a rather imposing source of fear. Likewise, they look just right and the aura created from them is remarkable with their hand-made feel, blank expressions and burlap faces creating an air of menace to go along with all the mystery bits held over from the beginning so a lot of its success is based on the scarecrows. So much is derived from them and their look that they literally carry the film in the beginning where the first romp through the stalks is a very long, drawn-out sequence built around the faces and suspense from the scarecrows. It's other action scenes, from the encounters out in the cornfields where the creatures prove impervious to bullets or the scarecrows coming after them in their hideout make for a lot of rather fun scenes utilizing their appearance even further. The frantic finale, where the last remaining members must fight their way through the growing number of creatures in order to get away, gives this a nicely thrilling finish putting all the focus where it should be during that sequence. The other big plus is the strong kills, which are brutal and feature a good dose of blood when they occur, which all manage to hold this one up over its minor flaws. There are several things in here that don't really sit all that well. The most aggravating is that the majority of conversations were held over headsets, and often times made it seem like no one on-screen was actually speaking. It's incredibly irritating and makes it completely disjointed when you hear the majority of the conversations over headsets with the garbled functions and lack of actual conversations being carried out on- screen. This makes it worse as it's during the best part of the film as this happens during the search for the missing money and manages to really highlight the film's weak budget with its simplistic storyline really coming out in full force. There's also the big factor here in that the film really makes it obvious that there's an uncut version around that is far gorier than what is given, as what's on display is kinda choppy at times and looks like it was edited. Outside of these small nit-picks, this wasn't all that bad.Rated R: Extreme Graphic Language and Graphic Violence.

Per Myrhill It feels like they couldn't decide between making an action or a horror movie. Sometimes it also feels like they try to bend the story to match a specific scene. They should have used Bergmans motto: "kill your darling" and cut out some of the "talking" -scenes that doesn't fit in or move the story forward.The main actors couldn't deliver a line if their life depended on it. Try not to smile next time you scream Help! and Stop! And I really hate when they feel the need to set the scene with lines such as; it feels scary! instead of letting the scene play out more naturally and give the actors some more room to act? Several times it actually felt like I was watching two or three movies at the same time. I really liked the sound and music score though.

bowmanblue If you like horror films, the first thing you should check out is the year this was made: 1988. Therefore, don't go expecting the more 'modern' look and feel of the horror genre. What you have here is a typical eighties supernatural slasher/horror film. There's big hair, poor dialogue and cheesy special effects (by today's standards, anyway - chances are they were thought to be pretty terrific in their day).The film is about a group of robbers who steal a few million dollars then hijack a plane, taking the pilot and his daughter hostage in the process. However, one of the dastardly criminals (the British one, to be precise) doublecrosses his gang and parachutes out of the plane with all the money. Therefore the others force the pilot to land the plane and search for him. Guess who they meet? Some pretty nasty scarecrows who have first dibs on this particular field.I have to say that I wasn't particularly taken with the acting on display, but the story (of what there is) rolls along quite nicely. Soon we have a 'Night of the Living Dead style' standoff between the robbers and the scarecrows.I think Scarecrows will always have an audience - mainly those who watched it first time round in the eighties and still have a feeling of nostalgia for it. By today's standards it's a bit tame, but still quite watchable if you're into that sort of thing (and can put up with some of the silly decisions the characters make in the third act).

Scott LeBrun Five criminals stage a daring, violent robbery of an army payroll at a camp named Pendleton, and abduct a father and daughter to fly them to safety. However, the mastermind of the robbery decides to make off with the proceeds and parachutes down into a remote rural area. Naturally, his enraged comrades follow. However, what they don't expect is the nearby farm is populated with scarecrows - stealthy, sneaky, sadistic zombie scarecrows who decimate the gang one lowlife at a time.I know that that sounds pretty silly, but give director William Wesley and crew credit for handling this premise better than you'd think. They never go the purely cheesy route, largely staying away from blatant humour (although there are some amusing, silly gags near the end) and any sort of camp. What they do instead is milk the atmosphere for all that's it worth, and when it comes down to that aspect of the movie, it's very well done.They also make the interesting move of never truly explaining things, in terms of how these scarecrows could come to be that way. The scarecrows are genuinely ugly and ferocious, and there aren't too many shots of the things shambling around, which would undermine their effectiveness. And speaking of ferocity, the gore in this movie is extremely enjoyable, as we get to see stabbings, decapitations, and the sight of a character who's had their innards removed to be replaced with the purloined money.This is entertaining stuff here, that gets down to business right away and moves forward at a respectable pace. (If it weren't for a pretty slow end credits crawl, the running time would still come in around 80 minutes or so.) The characters are reasonably entertaining & the acting gets the job done; it's a hoot to see the character Curry (Michael David Simms) lose it as he realizes how screwed the whole bunch of them are. Ted Vernon, who also takes an executive producer credit, is good in the top billed role of Corbin; he looks tough and bad ass but is really a sensitive kind of guy, as he tries to look out for the young female captive Kellie (Victoria Christian, who is actually dubbed by Bambi Darro).Lovers of indie horror, and the scarecrow sub genre, are sure to find this a pleasing enough movie that can claim to be legitimately spooky, and delivers a number of fine sequences as it plays out.Seven out of 10.