Dark Harvest

Blowing through Intervision movies one by one and I got to this one. I saw bad reviews and was worried it was going to be another Things or Sledgehammer. I was wrong. This movie is misunderstood and is a great fun little scarecrow movie with surprisingly good actors and some freaky scenes. A great movie to watch on an autumn evening if you have the chance.

I am an eclectic lover of movies. Once I like all the genres, I usually try to locate unknown films, independents, awarded in minor festivals, or having a good actor or director, because many times I find hidden gems. Yesterday, for example, I saw an excellent Vietnam war unknown movie called `The Iron Triangle'. Sometimes, I commit mistake, and the movie is not as good as I expect, but amen, it would be very easy selecting classics only. I found this used `Dark Harvest' on VHS on sale in a rental and it was so cheap that I decided to buy it. The cover, with a scarecrow, is nice. However, the film is so cheesy, so amateurish made, so ridiculous, that I did not finish watching it. Maybe I try again, just to see how bad a movie can be. Indeed, it is not a movie, but maybe a joke, or a project of students in an university, or maybe a home film, I am not sure. But I also do not know how such a crap found a minor Brazilian distributor (`Opção'), which had the courage of releasing such a trash without any fear of the market rejection. Indirectly I am promoting this junk thing, but if you reader, do not believe me, take a chance and try to see whether you can go until the `The End' of this trashy stuff. My vote is one (the lowest allowable in IMDB).

Title (Brazil): `O Campo do Terror' (`The Field of Terror')

In Dark Harvest, a low-budget early-90s entry in the minor sub-genre that is Scarecrow Horror, a group of hikers become lost in the desert and wander onto a sacred Indian burial ground where they are attacked by scarecrows.

Why there are scarecrows posted all over the desert is never explained, but it's not important: what does matter is that the majority of the ladies in the cast get their boobs out before they die, which helps make up somewhat for the film's terrible acting, lack of technical aptitude, complete absence of scares, and bloodless killings. Unfortunately, the nudity dries up in the final half an hour or so, meaning that this part of the film really drags.

In short, Dark Harvest is not a film to actively seek out unless you're on a mission to see every cheap, trashy shot-on-video horror ever made or you really, really like movies with lots of boobs (both apply to me).

I've seen my fair share of terrible films, most of the time I actually really enjoy them. I thought for some time that Hostel (2005) was the worst film I have ever seen. But good Lord, This movie is an insult to the art of film. To start, I have a huge horror bing with me and my brother, this was somehow on here, I never even added it, so we we're dead confused on what this film is, we discovered that there's a remake trilogy of this film, which I just need to ask why anyone would ever remake this. So watching this I was confused, but when it finished... I was mad! It was a complete insult to movies, especially horror movies. The film felt more like a porno then it did a film, there was too much sex in this film to be classified as a film, or even an NC-17 film. The acting was horrendous, it was the worst acting ever, not a single memorable line, even Manos had memorable lines. The characters were flat, the only thing we knew is that they were all friends and couples, and the old man sucked too. The main villains, the scarecrows, looked so bad it was laughable, like I was laughing harder at this more than a comedy. Then I remembered it was a horror film and got mad. Also why would there be scarecrows in a desert? I know the elderly man said all the wheat got swept away, but like, that is such a terrible explanation, at least the remake took place in a corn field. Also, the characters had nothing, because they were in a desert, no weapons or locations. So the movie became really boring. I had to watch this film at 2x speed because of how slow it was, there was almost no horror in it at all. AT ALL. Also, the quality was horrible, it seemed like it was from the 60s. It was on par with Manos: The Hands of Fate or the Beast of Yucca Flats in quality! The one redeeming thing about this "movie" is the soundtrack, it's okay. All in all if IMDb let you give a 0/10, I would give that. Because this deserves a 0.

The first 20 minutes of this movie are relatively well made and you honestly would'nt guess that it was an amateurish B-movie horror flick. Everything from the setting to the annoying cast to the dialog seems pretty OK until the actual murders start happening. This is what keeps it from getting a score of 1/10. The shock will hit you when you notice that the bad guy is just a cheap costume with an F-grade special effect for lighting up his eyes. The murder and attack scenes are of course dumb and unscary. The murders happen rather quickly and the hero is also quick to dispatch of the bad guy. The scene where a flare is fired to blow up the bad guy is however, constitutes the worst effects and screenplay I've ever seen. While this is just badly made amateurish crap as far as its own concept is concerned, it is far from the worst in the business.