Scarecrows is a bit better, and worse, than your typical scarecrow movie, but I haven't seen a whole lot of them. The bad thing about Scarecrows is that it fails at all, as it is a good story. The script is hit and miss, the acting is really bad, and it was obviously padded to meet its 120-minute mark, but Scarecrows showcases what the money was spent on in these 1980's-era films: The Creature(s)/SFX, and that counts. I think younger generations are rating it higher than it deserves simply because it succeeds on that level -- because it does -- and they are so used to completely unrealistic CGI effects.
The SFX are fantastic, and on full-display throughout the entirety of the movie, but the acting is so bad, the story so padded, that Scarecrows can't help but come apart at the seams. HA! At a full half-hour shorter, it would have been far more powerful, but not without those great special effects. Scarecrows may have needed the padding to fill a cable pay-channel timeslot to afford the special-effects, which depend as heavily on wardrobe and lighting as make-up -- the "CGI" of its day.
That may be a play on a play from the movie itself: Luminaries like Rick Baker and Tom Savini were at the top of their form in those days, and Scarecrows shows a fair amount of gore, make-up, and SFX, despite the demonic forces what are the titular scarecrows being masked. It is an effective show of an overall effects department, as opposed to the cheap, garish tricks they throw at today's audiences. These are those same tricks in full regale -- not pared down to their loudest, and most scientifically, psychologically, or artistically "effective."
Scarecrows has a little substance, and it throws a lot of style at the screen, but by 1988, this was a bloated Tales from the Crypt episode without the acting chops. Its clever script and concept is stretched so thin that it comes apart at the seams. HAHA, CUZ... I mean, they're scarecrows.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment