A group of teenagers go to an inherited family farm, only to be attacked by a killer scarecrow.A group of teenagers go to an inherited family farm, only to be attacked by a killer scarecrow.A group of teenagers go to an inherited family farm, only to be attacked by a killer scarecrow.
Photos
LordAbraham Greatson
- Brian
- (as Bobby Wilson-York)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to the calendar visible in the general store, the action of this film takes place during the month of July 2002.
- GoofsAt the beginning of the film, a title states that the movie is set in "Carson County, West Virgina", clearly missing the third "I" in Virginia.
- Crazy creditsAimee Cox, who plays Alex is left out of the ending credits, but appears in the opening credits.
- ConnectionsFollowed by Dark Harvest II: The Maize (2004)
Featured review
Don't be fooled by the box cover
I picked up this flick because the cover interested me. Boy was I mistaken. For a low budget movie it started out OK. Your standard group of horror movie teens go to a isolated house and get hacked up. At some points I thought that this film would come up with something new. No chance of that. Not even the skinny dipping scene could save this flick.
I knew it was a bad omen when I saw that the writer was also the director, OK that's not the bad part. Some writers work good as directors of their own work(this isn't one of them). The bad part is that the costume designer and I think the director of photography both share the last name of the writer/director. Now I'm all for using family on a film if they can do the job but come on. First of all the scarecrows looked as if their masks were bought at the local costume shop and weren't even scary(more like laughable). Second the camera work was really bad. In the first scene in the present day, when the lawyer gets up the shake the kids hand the camera stays in place and shoots his torso for a moment. Come on.
On the plus side(not a lot of plus's). The gore FX were not bad. Their is a nice shot of a scythe coming threw a door and threw a guy's shoulder. Hey, if you want a laugh watch the end credits, they show all the bloopers(which is what the whole movie seemed to be to me). The "hero" with his tragic past tries to come across with some cool one liners but they just made me laugh.
Somewhere in this flick was a good story but I couldn't find it. In the end I felt that I wasted $2.00 and 90 minutes that I won't get back.
I knew it was a bad omen when I saw that the writer was also the director, OK that's not the bad part. Some writers work good as directors of their own work(this isn't one of them). The bad part is that the costume designer and I think the director of photography both share the last name of the writer/director. Now I'm all for using family on a film if they can do the job but come on. First of all the scarecrows looked as if their masks were bought at the local costume shop and weren't even scary(more like laughable). Second the camera work was really bad. In the first scene in the present day, when the lawyer gets up the shake the kids hand the camera stays in place and shoots his torso for a moment. Come on.
On the plus side(not a lot of plus's). The gore FX were not bad. Their is a nice shot of a scythe coming threw a door and threw a guy's shoulder. Hey, if you want a laugh watch the end credits, they show all the bloopers(which is what the whole movie seemed to be to me). The "hero" with his tragic past tries to come across with some cool one liners but they just made me laugh.
Somewhere in this flick was a good story but I couldn't find it. In the end I felt that I wasted $2.00 and 90 minutes that I won't get back.
- lonewolf105
- Aug 11, 2004
- Permalink
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $130,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 28 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content