Scarecrow's Revenge

source: Scarecrow's Revenge

Moviecut—Scarecrow's Revenge

I can forgive having vikings with accents from multiple countries. I can even forgive the countless historical inaccuracies. I don't even mind that all the swords had round ends. But I can't forgive the terrible writing, acting and action. The fight scenes were the worst I have ever seen. I also can't overlook that they couldn't even come close to matching the color of blood. Did I mention at one point you can see an airplane trail in the sky? The costumes and dialogue were so inaccurate that I would have never even guessed that they were vikings. Luckily, they mention that they are vikings every 30 seconds. And they are not savages. I gave it 2 stars because sadly, I have seen worse. I definitely wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.

First off I gave it 1-Star, come IMDb start putting minus stars on these things. I read in one review where it was watch for 10 mins, REALLY DUDE! Ten while minutes to know this is bad, Let me tell you what I found bad about Scarecrow's Revenge ... EVERY DAMN THING! The actors must have worn the casting couch out to get money to make this garbage. What's with film makers who keep using the old tired events in movies, like a person is being chased by a killer, a creature, bad guys, they run 20 feet and fall down and look behind them as if waiting on their close up, and trotting through a scene is not running. Gawd if you fall while being chase, your dumb ass need to be killed. Or in most movies someone suffers with Asthma, Gawd when will it ever stop, this is just a couple of rants about movies and the lame morons and nimrod in Hollywood who keep rehashing old tired scenes in movies. As for this one ... IT'S BAD FROM START TO FINISH! They couldn't even figure out how to hang a Scarecrow from a cross post in a cornfield. He or it was standing on the ground with his arm(s) draped over the post. Just sad. Come on IMDb, adjust your ratings to include negative ratings, One Star isn't low enough for this turkey, and I apologize to all the turkeys, I may has insulted by the comparison.

This is based on my opinion tbh. I bought this movie a few months ago, I didn't have time until now so I popped it in and I watched like 10 minutes of it and immediately took it out cause it was so bad! The actors and actresses showed no expressions of terrified what so ever, the killer scarecrow did a terrible job jumpscaring and wasn't that scary and the witch's face was bad editing.

So this was about vikings fighting scarecrow....well thats the only thing good about it. If you love cheesy actors and alot of cheesy dialogs, cuts and filming angles that really gets you to explore things as nosehairs fake screams and a few bloody bits....then this is for you. Now to the goofy failed historic accuracies or lack of. The first thing you notice is a cornfield with "modern" scarecrows. Scarecrows didnt look like anything with straws in it up until perhaps 1800. Not to mention CORNFIELDS. Corn originate from the american continent which was discovered end of 1400 AD. "Vikings" or more accurate wording "norsemen" stopped being vikings in late 1000 AD some even earlier than that due to them being converted to christianity and after that forbidden to raid. Then the clothes are all wrong if they would be "vikings" there would be more hides and curated skin.

In 804 AD men did not have wrist watch tan lines and clothing labels flopping about the neck of their Pier One tunics. Also, chrome hadn't been invented yet much less wired telephone poles. Don't even get me started on the cars you can see through the trees and the constant thrum of traffic just yards away.

This scarecrow movie is not related to any other scarecrow series film. It takes place in 810 England as a Viking settlement is irked by Henry the scarecrow (Peter Cosgrove) who wants revenge for being banished. He contacts a witch and ends up fighting a female Viking in stretch knit pants and a round-tipped sword. Every scene is filled with anachronisms in this low budget film. The Viking settlement is small and the choreographing if the only horror aspect of the feature. Sarah T. Cohen was a hoot every time she attempted to wield her cardboard sword. Guide: No sex or nudity. Grope/attempted rape.

A couple points for the concept, which appeals to my cheesy B-movie loving heart. On paper, it sounds great: vikings VS scarecrows! What's not to love? Mixing genres and giving slasher movies a new setting could've been a real plus. One extra point for the witch lady, whose "acting" makes her seem like she could really use an exorcism. Otherwise, this is pretty dull, with an elongated and frankly boring opening stalk-a-thon that evaporated my hopes for this being any fun right away. What were have here is a movie that looks like a bunch of friends were trying to find uses for their ren faire costumes, but also happened to have a scarecrow getup lying around that they didn't want to go to waste. The result is a movie about a group of unconvincing "vikings" being picked off slasher-style by a shambling scarecrow. Kinda makes you wonder how these guys managed to do any conquering when a really slow dude in rags can take out them out so easily, but hey. Nowhere near as amusing as the silly premise made me hope.

WTF is it with the trend of releasing crap movies. There has been no effort put into this garbage, even the blood isn't the right colour - oh, I'm sorry, was that considered a spoiler. Seriously upset at the level of film making these days, can't even class this a B grade, more like S grade, and you know what the S is short for.