I'll admit, there aren't that many English language horror movies that made it to video in the 90s that I'm not at least aware of, but Night of the Scarecrow took me by surprise, I'll admit. It is possibly I had actually seen its title before, but in my head confused it with either Scarecrows, a 1988 movie, or any of those entirely disposable horror movies that came out post truth of the century that seemed to favour scarecrows as an antagonist.
Indeed, Scarecrows are a recurring menace in all walks of fiction, villains in both Marvel & DC comics, numerous movies, a Tales from the Crypt episode...there's even a Goosebumps book about one. Yet I can't think of any definitive turn for one as a villain, which does make me wonder why it's such a popular touchstone for horror writers, even though there's been limited success?
This didn't have any names I recognised, and upon looking up director Jeff Burr, the immediate standout on his CV is Witchouse 2, one of the worst movies I've ever seen, so hopes weren't high.
The movie follows Dillon (John Mese) a construction worker who has pulled up in a small American town in search of work. He quickly befriends Claire (Elizabeth Barondes) whom it turns out is daughter of town Mayor Frank Goodman (Stephen Root)
The Goodman's run this town in all faucets, with the Mayor, chief of police and priest all part of the deep rooted clan.
This are going fine until local town reprobates take a joyride on a tractor and wind up crashing into and destroying a mysterious stone crypt. This releases the spirit of an ancient warlock, who possesses a nearby scarecrow.
As he begins a rampage across the town, Dillon has to not only stay alive, but work out how to defeat the straw slayer while uncovering his motives, and why he has a vendetta against the Goodman clan.
So the plot isn't going to rock your world, but in all honesty, it's relatively engaging, and does at least have a bit more to it that the majority of slasher films of the era (the genre was about to receive a big facelift courtesy of Scream) and while it's not original, it is workable.
Where it does hold some real appeal for horror aficionados is the rather creative ways the scarecrow offs his victims. It starts with a simple pitchfork but his supernatural nature grants him a few more unique means to dispose of his victims. It's not that gory as such, with a few exceptions, but his use of straw is somewhat unsettling.
One thing I'm on the fence about, which based on the trivia here was a late change, is the nature of the Scarecrow's vocal capacity. I mean he talks. Apparently Burr stopped short of having him make wisecracks, but he is relatively vocal, which is a bizarre middle ground that I never really come to terms with. I think his few outbursts are meant to be creepy, but they fall a bit flat for me.
The effects work is generally quite decent to be fair. It's not pushing the boundaries or anything but more than acceptable for a movie of this ilk.
On that note, this is a strange beast. In terms of production values, this feels somewhere between a Straight-To-Video and a TV Movie in terms of budget. The effects and general quality of the film feels good, but the acting, while not awful, is a bit below par. I mean there's nothing off putting, but I feel like it's missing a character actor or two to steal the show.
Indeed, this is a strange one to try and rate. It's not a 'good' movie by any stretch, not even fun enough right be a cult classic, yet at the same time it's relatively engaging for fans of the genre, so if tit get the chance to stream it for free...it's a passable way to spend a night indoors. Don't set your hopes too high and you should be fine.
Indeed, Scarecrows are a recurring menace in all walks of fiction, villains in both Marvel & DC comics, numerous movies, a Tales from the Crypt episode...there's even a Goosebumps book about one. Yet I can't think of any definitive turn for one as a villain, which does make me wonder why it's such a popular touchstone for horror writers, even though there's been limited success?
This didn't have any names I recognised, and upon looking up director Jeff Burr, the immediate standout on his CV is Witchouse 2, one of the worst movies I've ever seen, so hopes weren't high.
The movie follows Dillon (John Mese) a construction worker who has pulled up in a small American town in search of work. He quickly befriends Claire (Elizabeth Barondes) whom it turns out is daughter of town Mayor Frank Goodman (Stephen Root)
The Goodman's run this town in all faucets, with the Mayor, chief of police and priest all part of the deep rooted clan.
This are going fine until local town reprobates take a joyride on a tractor and wind up crashing into and destroying a mysterious stone crypt. This releases the spirit of an ancient warlock, who possesses a nearby scarecrow.
As he begins a rampage across the town, Dillon has to not only stay alive, but work out how to defeat the straw slayer while uncovering his motives, and why he has a vendetta against the Goodman clan.
So the plot isn't going to rock your world, but in all honesty, it's relatively engaging, and does at least have a bit more to it that the majority of slasher films of the era (the genre was about to receive a big facelift courtesy of Scream) and while it's not original, it is workable.
Where it does hold some real appeal for horror aficionados is the rather creative ways the scarecrow offs his victims. It starts with a simple pitchfork but his supernatural nature grants him a few more unique means to dispose of his victims. It's not that gory as such, with a few exceptions, but his use of straw is somewhat unsettling.
One thing I'm on the fence about, which based on the trivia here was a late change, is the nature of the Scarecrow's vocal capacity. I mean he talks. Apparently Burr stopped short of having him make wisecracks, but he is relatively vocal, which is a bizarre middle ground that I never really come to terms with. I think his few outbursts are meant to be creepy, but they fall a bit flat for me.
The effects work is generally quite decent to be fair. It's not pushing the boundaries or anything but more than acceptable for a movie of this ilk.
On that note, this is a strange beast. In terms of production values, this feels somewhere between a Straight-To-Video and a TV Movie in terms of budget. The effects and general quality of the film feels good, but the acting, while not awful, is a bit below par. I mean there's nothing off putting, but I feel like it's missing a character actor or two to steal the show.
Indeed, this is a strange one to try and rate. It's not a 'good' movie by any stretch, not even fun enough right be a cult classic, yet at the same time it's relatively engaging for fans of the genre, so if tit get the chance to stream it for free...it's a passable way to spend a night indoors. Don't set your hopes too high and you should be fine.