40 reviews
"Just because it's stopped doesn't mean it's gone"
- hwg1957-102-265704
- Feb 8, 2020
- Permalink
Good "monster" concept". So-so movie.
Got to say it first: I enjoyed this Scarecrow look! At first I was thinking that it is indeed original, by far, afterwards, maybe a little dumb, but after hearing the explanation in the plot, of how it got that way, yeah, hands down to this concept! I approve!
So, Scarecrow 2013: a very nice and enjoyable movie, of course you must NOT expect too much, just some innocent fun, some almost scares, the most standard horror moves, "let's split off", "let's do that", "I can't believe it is real", and so on. But overall, better than those tryhard movies, that get lost in their own work. I approve to this one, for a cheesy cliché horror night!
Really, not much to say about it, either you love it, or not. But if you do lower your expectations, and just sit, watch, eat popcorn and make fun, you might be in for exactly what you have hoped for. Fun fun fun!
So, Scarecrow 2013: a very nice and enjoyable movie, of course you must NOT expect too much, just some innocent fun, some almost scares, the most standard horror moves, "let's split off", "let's do that", "I can't believe it is real", and so on. But overall, better than those tryhard movies, that get lost in their own work. I approve to this one, for a cheesy cliché horror night!
Really, not much to say about it, either you love it, or not. But if you do lower your expectations, and just sit, watch, eat popcorn and make fun, you might be in for exactly what you have hoped for. Fun fun fun!
- Patient444
- Dec 11, 2013
- Permalink
Saw much better, saw worse
I didn't expect much of this movie and I was right about it. There is not much to say about this movie. I thought the actors were mediocre at best. The story could have been good if the movie wasn't so predictable. You have the typical high school bad students on detention. They are all like 25 years old and you wonder why they can not find younger actors to play them. Then you get the typical scenes like the car that doesn't start anymore, the girl that falls over all the time trying to escape, the girl that wants to offer another girl as sacrifice so she can escape herself etc... The only good thing about the movie was the scarecrow itself. I thought he looked pretty good. It would have been better if they had given us some background story. I will forget everything about this movie in a week.
- deloudelouvain
- Mar 7, 2015
- Permalink
Mildly Entertaining
A group of well-deserving teens (who look way too old, but that's nothing new) spend some quality detention time running through corn and hiding in a haunted farmhouse & legendary site of several murders. The legend isn't apparently a myth, and they pay for their trespassing. It's been done before, and definitely better, but not a bad Sy-Fy offering. Nice and Halloween-y, starring that guy who I finally recognized from "Sanctuary" about halfway through.
Random thoughts - Very good to see Lacy Chabert again. Why doesn't she do more? Why is there a ripe field of corn planted on what's supposed to be long-deserted land?
Random thoughts - Very good to see Lacy Chabert again. Why doesn't she do more? Why is there a ripe field of corn planted on what's supposed to be long-deserted land?
Everything felt done before
- kernanj-53-367542
- Jul 15, 2014
- Permalink
Full of Straw
- loomis78-815-989034
- Mar 16, 2015
- Permalink
He stands in the cornfield waiting to seek revenge.
- michaelRokeefe
- Mar 15, 2017
- Permalink
Low budget creature horror but in a good way
It might not be on the same level as bigger productions of the same genre. But thanks to it's consistent and equal quality in all aspects of the movie, it manages to not be as terrible as some other low budget movies. If you're having a day where you don't mind investing 90 minutes of your life and you're in the mood for a nice, easy, horror flick then I can recommend it. The VFX was actually much better than expected and elevated this movie visually which made every scene with the scarecrow in it quite enjoyable. The creature itself is quite scary and the way it manifest hasn't been done like that before so it felt fresh and interesting. 5 out of 10 for me.
- mobileschwerti
- Jun 6, 2022
- Permalink
Didn't Scare Me
Two horny teenagers go in to a barn for some you know what . The horny female falls from a ladder which causes a deep cut and this causes a scarecrow to come to life and embark on a purge against horny teenagers
Stop laughing because that premise is exactly as I described it . As you might expect it's yet another teenagers in peril from a violent blood thirsty monster where sex equates with being killed by the said blood thirsty monster
" Hey Theo I think I might have seen this type of movie before . Tell me what's different about it "
Not much except it's got a killer scarecrow in it . I did think perhaps it was going to totally rip off JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 but lets face it plagiarising a film by Victor Salva isn't a good marketing ploy so the film does go its own way slightly even though it remains painfully generic . The eponymous Scarecrow itself is very scary looking and the director tries to make use of sound effects but it fails to gain an extra mark due to being too obviously CGI created
In summary SCARECROW only appeals to horror junkies
Stop laughing because that premise is exactly as I described it . As you might expect it's yet another teenagers in peril from a violent blood thirsty monster where sex equates with being killed by the said blood thirsty monster
" Hey Theo I think I might have seen this type of movie before . Tell me what's different about it "
Not much except it's got a killer scarecrow in it . I did think perhaps it was going to totally rip off JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 but lets face it plagiarising a film by Victor Salva isn't a good marketing ploy so the film does go its own way slightly even though it remains painfully generic . The eponymous Scarecrow itself is very scary looking and the director tries to make use of sound effects but it fails to gain an extra mark due to being too obviously CGI created
In summary SCARECROW only appeals to horror junkies
- Theo Robertson
- Feb 3, 2014
- Permalink
One of the better SyFy Channel movies in a long time...
I find it kind of odd that people are overly negative about this movie. Sure, it is a SyFy Channel original movie, so you shouldn't get your hopes up in the likes of major blockbuster multi-million dollar glamorous Hollywood productions. But every now and again SyFy Channel does manage to hit a Homerus - and they did so with "Scarecrow".
The story is about a town that celebrates the 100th annual scarecrow festival, and apparently there is a grim tale about an animated scarecrow on a local farm. This turns out to be true, as a group of people come face to face with a grotesque and murderous entity.
Storywise, then "Scarecrow" was actually enjoyable, it had just the right amount of fun and thrills, though it wasn't a particular scary movie, unless you are easily scared, of course. But still, the story proved to be entertaining and well enough thought through.
As for the acting, well people were doing good jobs with their given roles and it was fun to see Lacey Chabert in a movie such as this. She did carry the movie well.
The effects in "Scarecrow" were actually quite good. Sure, this wasn't a CGI galore such as those over the top Hollywood productions, but the effects proved effective to what they were supposed to do. The scarecrow was nicely animated and had some great details, and it didn't actually look fake at any one point throughout the movie.
If you enjoy a good monster flick, that doesn't necessarily require much thinking from the audience side, then "Scarecrow" is a good choice. "Scarecrow" managed to squeeze a 6 out of 10 stars rating out of me.
The story is about a town that celebrates the 100th annual scarecrow festival, and apparently there is a grim tale about an animated scarecrow on a local farm. This turns out to be true, as a group of people come face to face with a grotesque and murderous entity.
Storywise, then "Scarecrow" was actually enjoyable, it had just the right amount of fun and thrills, though it wasn't a particular scary movie, unless you are easily scared, of course. But still, the story proved to be entertaining and well enough thought through.
As for the acting, well people were doing good jobs with their given roles and it was fun to see Lacey Chabert in a movie such as this. She did carry the movie well.
The effects in "Scarecrow" were actually quite good. Sure, this wasn't a CGI galore such as those over the top Hollywood productions, but the effects proved effective to what they were supposed to do. The scarecrow was nicely animated and had some great details, and it didn't actually look fake at any one point throughout the movie.
If you enjoy a good monster flick, that doesn't necessarily require much thinking from the audience side, then "Scarecrow" is a good choice. "Scarecrow" managed to squeeze a 6 out of 10 stars rating out of me.
- paul_haakonsen
- Nov 2, 2013
- Permalink
Neither terrible or great, falls into the not bad category
While Scarecrow is left wanting somewhat, for SyFy it really isn't so bad. There are some good things. Scarecrow is one of SyFy's better-looking recent movies, the scenery is good and atmosphere and it is slickly shot. The quality of the scarecrow design is not bad at all, in fact apart from some too-smooth movements, which for SyFy is saying a good deal. The score does have some eeriness, and the beginning sets things up nicely. The acting is better than average also, Lacey Chabert and Robin Dunne fare the best and they are good. The direction is of the kind is that is never inept or adept, competent is the best word though it could have been with more crispness and character in the latter part of the movie. There are failings in Scarecrow though. The biggest failing is that it doesn't convey its horror elements very well. There are some moments in the first half, but much of it suffers from being too been-there-done-that quality, from not knowing when to end, from having a lack of build-up or suspense and that the fear and danger levels are quite low. The story is refreshingly simple to begin with and starts promisingly, sadly it is also the kind of story that later on becomes too simple and runs out of ideas too early. There is also too much down-time and exposition, coupled with the lack of scares there are too many of tediousness. The dialogue could have done with being tighter, and with less of an over-serious and simplistic approach. The exposition scenes are particularly bad in this regard. And while the scarecrow is good in look, it also doesn't have much of a personality and is severely under-utilised. In conclusion, not bad, could have been worse but it's nothing particularly great either. 5/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Oct 19, 2013
- Permalink
"Scarecrow" delivers
Released to Syfy during Halloween, 2013, "Scarecrow" chronicles events at a supposedly haunted farm where a school detention group goes to do some work. A scary-looking creature appears and starts picking them off one-by-one.
There are some similarities to the hallowed "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) in that the group takes refuge in a farm house but, unlike that film, they don't spend the entire story there. The creature pursues them to other environments.
Why do I rate "Scarecrow" as high as I do? For one, the filmmakers and actors take the material seriously and so the film never devolves into parody or camp. As such, the viewer is able to take it seriously. Secondly, the CGI monster is excellent. It's scary-looking and changes shape constantly while remaining the same basic appearance.
Thirdly, the film features a quality cast of women. There are no less than FIVE, all stunning or near-stunning in their own unique way, starting with the blond (Lanie McAuley) in the teaser. From there we get four petite brunettes, beginning with the curvaceous delinquent played by Julia Maxwell, whose role is way too brief, followed by Nicole Muñoz, Lacey Chabert and Brittney Wilson. Lacey emerges as the film's protagonist while Brittney becomes the quasi-antagonist. Lastly, the Vancouver-area locations are effective for this type of film, particularly the superlative "ship graveyard" in the final act.
The film runs 86 minutes.
GRADE: B+/A-
CRITICS' QUESTIONS ANSWERED (***SPOILER ALERT***)
If the farm is abandoned who planted all the corn? Kristen obviously rented out the land to the neighboring farmer in order to pay the property taxes. Why is the nerd in detention to start with? Because nerdy misfits sometimes get detention too. Why does the creature show five claws/fingers? Because it has five claws/fingers. Why does the scarecrow monster look more like a burnt-to-crisp spider than a scarecrow? Because it's not a scarecrow, but rather some kind of demonic creature; the locals simply dubbed it the "Scarecrow" a hundred years earlier and the name stuck.
Why are the bales of hay conveniently placed like steps? Obviously to make it convenient to climb to the second story door of the barn. Why does the cop car start and not the truck? Because there was nothing wrong with it; the owner of the old truck, however, said that it had a problem overheating. Why did the driver of the cop car swerve when the thing appeared on the road and not run it over? It was a split second decision and the sudden appearance of the creature shocked him; besides, it's clear that running the monster over wouldn't have harmed it.
Why does the ex-boyfriend bravely roll under the vehicle and set it on fire with the creature there with him? He was already mortally wounded and, since he was going to die anyway, he wanted to (try to) take the monster out with his brave final act. Why is the girl ground-up by the farm machine and not the scarecrow? It was repeatedly stated throughout the movie that the creature couldn't die; or, at least, people didn't THINK it could die. Besides, the creature obviously doesn't have a concrete physical form and is probably more spiritual than physical in nature; thus the machine couldn't harm it.
What are the limitations of the creature, as far as time of day when it appears or how far it can travel from the farm? It's obviously some kind of territorial demon attached to the farm & the town and seeks out the Miller family as prey, plus anyone that gets in the way; it's never disclosed how far it can travel from the farm or town, but the ship graveyard didn't seem too distant, maybe 5-7 miles. How did the ship explode without a spark? She broke the line by the tank and then made sparks with the ax, which caught the gasoline (or whatever) on the floor on fire, which spread to the tank within a minute or so and thus the ship blew.
There are some similarities to the hallowed "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) in that the group takes refuge in a farm house but, unlike that film, they don't spend the entire story there. The creature pursues them to other environments.
Why do I rate "Scarecrow" as high as I do? For one, the filmmakers and actors take the material seriously and so the film never devolves into parody or camp. As such, the viewer is able to take it seriously. Secondly, the CGI monster is excellent. It's scary-looking and changes shape constantly while remaining the same basic appearance.
Thirdly, the film features a quality cast of women. There are no less than FIVE, all stunning or near-stunning in their own unique way, starting with the blond (Lanie McAuley) in the teaser. From there we get four petite brunettes, beginning with the curvaceous delinquent played by Julia Maxwell, whose role is way too brief, followed by Nicole Muñoz, Lacey Chabert and Brittney Wilson. Lacey emerges as the film's protagonist while Brittney becomes the quasi-antagonist. Lastly, the Vancouver-area locations are effective for this type of film, particularly the superlative "ship graveyard" in the final act.
The film runs 86 minutes.
GRADE: B+/A-
CRITICS' QUESTIONS ANSWERED (***SPOILER ALERT***)
If the farm is abandoned who planted all the corn? Kristen obviously rented out the land to the neighboring farmer in order to pay the property taxes. Why is the nerd in detention to start with? Because nerdy misfits sometimes get detention too. Why does the creature show five claws/fingers? Because it has five claws/fingers. Why does the scarecrow monster look more like a burnt-to-crisp spider than a scarecrow? Because it's not a scarecrow, but rather some kind of demonic creature; the locals simply dubbed it the "Scarecrow" a hundred years earlier and the name stuck.
Why are the bales of hay conveniently placed like steps? Obviously to make it convenient to climb to the second story door of the barn. Why does the cop car start and not the truck? Because there was nothing wrong with it; the owner of the old truck, however, said that it had a problem overheating. Why did the driver of the cop car swerve when the thing appeared on the road and not run it over? It was a split second decision and the sudden appearance of the creature shocked him; besides, it's clear that running the monster over wouldn't have harmed it.
Why does the ex-boyfriend bravely roll under the vehicle and set it on fire with the creature there with him? He was already mortally wounded and, since he was going to die anyway, he wanted to (try to) take the monster out with his brave final act. Why is the girl ground-up by the farm machine and not the scarecrow? It was repeatedly stated throughout the movie that the creature couldn't die; or, at least, people didn't THINK it could die. Besides, the creature obviously doesn't have a concrete physical form and is probably more spiritual than physical in nature; thus the machine couldn't harm it.
What are the limitations of the creature, as far as time of day when it appears or how far it can travel from the farm? It's obviously some kind of territorial demon attached to the farm & the town and seeks out the Miller family as prey, plus anyone that gets in the way; it's never disclosed how far it can travel from the farm or town, but the ship graveyard didn't seem too distant, maybe 5-7 miles. How did the ship explode without a spark? She broke the line by the tank and then made sparks with the ax, which caught the gasoline (or whatever) on the floor on fire, which spread to the tank within a minute or so and thus the ship blew.
Seasonal Fun for TV Movie Horror
This was typical fare of something evil lurks and teenagers are on the menu. But with realistic gore and terror scenes, frightened actors and creepy settings, it's at least an enjoyable seasonal movie for Halloween, (it was aired on the Sy-Fy channel in October) and for TV movie horror fans alike. Mild enough to air on TV, it is fairly safe for younger teens and pre-teens, but engaging enough for the adults to watch, too. The monster was interesting yet vaguely familiar (think Jeepers Creepers) and yet kept me intrigued for the entirety of the story. Some twists and turns helped move the story along, despite the predictable characters and storyline. Overall, not bad. Not wonderful, but not bad.
Much more frustrating than scary
- monocreatives
- Mar 12, 2014
- Permalink
Great production & some chills....but plot holes galore
Where's the scarecrow?
This movie should have been called "Black CGI Glob Of Smoke", or "Burnt Halloween Spider Decoration", because that's what looks like attacks this group of so-called high schoolers cleaning up a farmhouse on a Saturday detention. The farm, we find out in a convenient explanatory scene, which raises as many questions as it answers, has a curse on it, and this CG scarecrow is determined to kill everybody that sets foot on the property.
The set designs have a certain degree of mood and atmosphere, the acting is tolerable, but the film has a huge void where the killer scarecrow is, or should be, and its death scene is contrived, unsatisfying, and takes place off-camera. If they had a real actor in the role of the scarecrow, instead of third rate CGI, the movie might have had a bit more tension and suspense, but even then, it would still be formulaic and predictable.
I've always found scarecrows to be creepy, but rarely are they this boring. I kept thinking that it might just simply blow away in a strong gust of wind.
The set designs have a certain degree of mood and atmosphere, the acting is tolerable, but the film has a huge void where the killer scarecrow is, or should be, and its death scene is contrived, unsatisfying, and takes place off-camera. If they had a real actor in the role of the scarecrow, instead of third rate CGI, the movie might have had a bit more tension and suspense, but even then, it would still be formulaic and predictable.
I've always found scarecrows to be creepy, but rarely are they this boring. I kept thinking that it might just simply blow away in a strong gust of wind.
- Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki
- May 29, 2015
- Permalink
No Science-fiction, Plenty of Stupidity
1.9 of 10. For a film that originates on a channel called "SyFy", there's not even science fiction in this massively dumb story. The characters and acting don't help.
Some "horror" films at least provide some soft-core sex to fill in gaps, but no luck in this PG horror for kiddies nonsense. I can only imagine children who still take the Grinch, Santa, and ghosts of Christmas past seriously could enjoy a Halloween story so flimsy.
There are some good copycat video and audio FX in this. Hopefully the people responsible for them will be put to better use with more competent writers, directors, and actors.
Some "horror" films at least provide some soft-core sex to fill in gaps, but no luck in this PG horror for kiddies nonsense. I can only imagine children who still take the Grinch, Santa, and ghosts of Christmas past seriously could enjoy a Halloween story so flimsy.
There are some good copycat video and audio FX in this. Hopefully the people responsible for them will be put to better use with more competent writers, directors, and actors.
Not for me ...
Mediocre rural horror
Canadian TV movie about a bunch of high school kids helping out on a farm as a detention for their bad behaviour, only to become victims of a demonic, indestructible scarecrow.
As a horror movie it is quite well paced, packing in an adequate amount of kills, gore and scares throughout its 83 minutes. As a scarecrow movie the creature looks more like something from the depths of the Abyss rather than from the middle of a corn field. Plus it is CGI, something that I am not a fan of. Acting is reasonable, though there are several unlikable characters and some of the actors are obviously older than the parts they are playing. As already mentioned there is a fair amount of gore but I felt that its UK 18 rating to be a little harsh.
I picked this up cheap on DVD, I won't watch it again but felt that I got my monies worth.There are much better scarecrow movies out there.
- Stevieboy666
- May 28, 2019
- Permalink
Not bad for a modern SyFy channel movie
- SusieSalmonLikeTheFish
- Feb 7, 2015
- Permalink
Another Scarecrow without a brain....
- FlashCallahan
- Mar 6, 2017
- Permalink
This is a syfy channel movie? No way
More generic horror fluff starring Chabert's cleavage
If you're a fan of Lacey Chabert's cleavage (and who isn't?), you may enjoy this though we could have used a lot more of the cleavage (or preferably her bare breasts, though even that wouldn't have helped this flop). For everyone else, skip it. It's just more run-of-the-mill, no budget generic, all-the-same, SyFy UNoriginal garbage. Another mixed, though not diverse, group of "teens" in their late 20s get mixed up with a supernatural entity in a barn in the woods. R-rated but barely.
Better Than I Expected
Scarecrow (2013)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Better than average SyFy flick about three adults and six teens who travel to an abandoned farmhouse to tear down a scarecrow so that it can be used in a town event. Before long there's a scarecrow killing them off one by one. You know, scarecrows can be rather creepy and we've gotten several horror films about them but most have been rather unsuccessful with the exception being DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW. I really wasn't expecting too much from this film but it actually delivered as long as you don't take it too serious and don't expect any scares. I thought the story itself from writer Rick Suvalle was pretty good as it seems he has a knowledge of the genre and knows how to milk certain scenes. One fine example of this is the opening sequence with a couple teens sneaking into a barn for some sex but you know what happens. I really liked how the story took place at this farmhouse and barn and I think the film only really started to suffer when they moved off these locations. The performances were actually better than you'd expect for this type of film with Lacey Chabert, Julia Maxwell, Nicole Munoz and Richard Harmon all doing fine work. The scarecrow itself is a CGI creation and it's certainly not as horrid as I was expecting. If you watch these SyFy movies then you know the monsters are usually horrid looking but I thought for the most part that this one looked okay. The scarecrow in the field that we see early on is much more effective though. The blood/violence level isn't all that high but we get a couple nice scenes. SCARECROW eventually runs out of gas around the hour mark and gets slowed down but fans of the sub-genre should find enough here to enjoy.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Better than average SyFy flick about three adults and six teens who travel to an abandoned farmhouse to tear down a scarecrow so that it can be used in a town event. Before long there's a scarecrow killing them off one by one. You know, scarecrows can be rather creepy and we've gotten several horror films about them but most have been rather unsuccessful with the exception being DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW. I really wasn't expecting too much from this film but it actually delivered as long as you don't take it too serious and don't expect any scares. I thought the story itself from writer Rick Suvalle was pretty good as it seems he has a knowledge of the genre and knows how to milk certain scenes. One fine example of this is the opening sequence with a couple teens sneaking into a barn for some sex but you know what happens. I really liked how the story took place at this farmhouse and barn and I think the film only really started to suffer when they moved off these locations. The performances were actually better than you'd expect for this type of film with Lacey Chabert, Julia Maxwell, Nicole Munoz and Richard Harmon all doing fine work. The scarecrow itself is a CGI creation and it's certainly not as horrid as I was expecting. If you watch these SyFy movies then you know the monsters are usually horrid looking but I thought for the most part that this one looked okay. The scarecrow in the field that we see early on is much more effective though. The blood/violence level isn't all that high but we get a couple nice scenes. SCARECROW eventually runs out of gas around the hour mark and gets slowed down but fans of the sub-genre should find enough here to enjoy.
- Michael_Elliott
- Oct 12, 2013
- Permalink
lesser TV horror
It's the 100th annual Scarecrow Festival. Marcy and Chad go into a barn to set up revenge against Nicki and Tyler but they are set upon by a mysterious creature. Nicki and Tyler have been put in detention for posting pictures of Marcy and Chad. Aaron Harris is the teacher in charge. Maris is a first-timer. Beth is the new girl. Calvin is the shy artist. Along with Daevon, the group is brought out to a farm to dismantle and bring back the original festival scarecrow. Kristen Mills (Lacey Chabert) comes out to meet her ex Aaron. She has also invited his friend-turned-enemy Eddie to make peace. The group is attacked by the creature.
The detention premise is unlikely. There are plenty of unrealistic actions from the characters. The first half takes place in the daylight which devalues its horror values. The CGI creature is passable considering its TV use. The problem is that the daylight relegates it to a fake CGI creation. Even the night time has the harsh artificial lighting. The actors are all perfectly fine. The only known actor is Chabert and her biggest asset continues to be her chest. The movie never rises above being a cheaper TV horror.
The detention premise is unlikely. There are plenty of unrealistic actions from the characters. The first half takes place in the daylight which devalues its horror values. The CGI creature is passable considering its TV use. The problem is that the daylight relegates it to a fake CGI creation. Even the night time has the harsh artificial lighting. The actors are all perfectly fine. The only known actor is Chabert and her biggest asset continues to be her chest. The movie never rises above being a cheaper TV horror.
- SnoopyStyle
- Feb 20, 2017
- Permalink