Reviews

Because I'm a fan of quality horror films, I am always on the prowl for those rare gems that occasionally surface if you dig hard enough. I'm talking about films that have slipped through the cracks of the mainstream, and, if they're lucky, have attained a second life on either Ebay or other purveyors of cult videos/DVDs.

If you're reading this, then you're probably familiar with these types of films. Rare but quality gems like `Peeping Tom,' `Eyes without a Face' (from France), `The Last Wave,' `The Night Stalker TV movie, `Ringu'(from Japan), or even the more recent `Dogs of War,' from England. Horror films that are well crafted, but have either faded into obscurity, or were never noticed by mainstream America.

Always keeping an open mind, and after seeing several references to the Australian film `Patrick' on several `best of horror' lists, I finally tracked down a copy yesterday and watched it.

Well...it took me three sittings to finish it. It was that tedious.

First of all, if there is *one* thing I cannot forgive in a studio film.it's bad acting. I can overlook bad special effects (and often do) when the film is more than 10 years old. I can also overlook (to some degree) glitches in the script, because often it's not the writer's fault that the script was ripped to shreds by the producers, director, and of course, the idiots at the studios (marketing departments and development execs). But, bad acting? There is just no excuse. There are too many strong, reliable (and affordable) actors out there to allow such mediocrity. Even in a low budget film.

But, if you can get past the horrendous acting, then you must contend with the deadly pacing, lack of imagination, and bad TV-style direction.

The concept of Patrick has a lot of potential, but unfortunately, under the amateurish hands of these filmmakers...it was never realized.

However, if you're the type of horror fan who isn't as discriminating in your taste, you could certainly do worse. I mean your local video store's horror section is filled with 98% crap, and Patrick is by no means the worst I've ever seen. (Although, that's hardly a compliment).

But, if you're like me, and you value your time, then I'd save your money AND your time and avoid this poor excuse for a horror film.

Instead, seek out well crafted (though far from perfect) rarities like the one I mentioned above, or try some of these:

. Suspiria . The Wicker Man . When a Stranger Calls . Martin (by George Romero) . The Changeling (with George C. Scott) . The Abominable Dr. Phibes . The Haunting (1963 version ONLY!) . Burnt Offerings . Freaks . Black Sunday (1960) . Horror of Dracula (1958) . The Legend of Hell House . Evil Dead 2 . The Dead Zone (by David Cronenberg)

Happy horrors!

OK, look. In my opinion, there are five catagories of horror films.

GRADE A - These are films like "The Exorcist," "Silence of the Lambs," "The Shining," "Rosemary's Baby," etc. They are usually bigger budget horror films that have managed to escape the giant cookie cutter of Hollywood due to such visionaries as Stanley Kubrick and Roman Polanski.

GRADE B - These are lower budget films like "Halloween," and "Night of the Living Dead." The good ones work because they are directed by such visionaries as John Carpenter and George Romero.

GRADE C - These can be either big budget or low budget. Most of them suck big time, but once in a while a "guilty pleasure" comes along like The Howling," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," or "The Evil Dead 2." In other words, no one is saying they're great films, but there is enough originality and/or inspired lunacy to make it worthwhile.

GRADE D - Trash filmmaking. Films like "Leprechaun," "Witchboard 5," "Puppet Master," etc etc. These are just plain bad films, but they defy criticism because there is an audience out there who just like to watch people die.

GRADE Z - These are usually straight to video films with the word "zombie" or "blood" in the title." I don't typically watch Grade D or Z movies, but apparently many people do.

"Scarecrows" is a Grade Z movie disguised as a Grade D movie. It's got high enough production values to manage a D rating, but the story, characters, pacing, direction, and special effects are strictly Grade Z.

I saw several good reviews of this movie on IMDB and hoped that maybe I'd discovered a rare gem. I'm always optimistic about finding a new discovery like the original "Ring" from Japan, or the underrated "Dogs of War" from England.

Believe me, folks. "Scarecrows" ain't no gem.

I personally found the film to be unwatchable. About half way through, I stared to fast forward through parts. It was THAT awful...and worse, BORING.

I've seen better character motivation and acting on UPN sitcoms and the story is thinner than Bruce Willis' hair. Actually, there IS no story. It's just a bunch of alleged paramilitary types running around...talking a lot (with amateurish dialogue)...and getting killed by stuntmen dressed like high-school-production scarecrows.

These filmmakers don't understand any of the rules of horror. There is no BUILD of suspense. There are no characters to invest in. There is nothing to interest you except the anticipation of the credits rolling at the end.

If you like amateurish movies, with shoddy production values, uninspired direction, and zero plot, then by all means watch this film.

But for those of you who truly appreciate a good horror film, go rent something you've already seen twice before. Actually go watch some paint dry or grass grow. I guarantee it will be more interesting than this stinker.

I was flipping channels today and was drawn into this celluloid vortex of unintentional hilarity. It was like a ghastly car wreck, I knew I shouldn't look...but I couldn't help myself. For me, the most hilarious element of the movie was the fact that they couldn't afford professional stunt people, so these poor actors (I use the term "actor" loosely) had to do their own stunts!!! And believe me, when you see Grade D actors doing their own stunts, it's pretty funny to watch. My wife and I were rolling on the ground with laughter at the terribly choreographed fight scenes and special effects. There's one scene where Jan Michael Vincent tries to do a "wheel kick" to take down a terrorist and he literally stumbles and falls onto the guy! And they didn't edit it out! LOL For me, "Deadly Heroes" (even the title is hilarious) has become the contemporary "Plan Nine From Outer Space," in that they take it so seriously...and yet it's such an amateurish train wreck. If you appreciate truly bad dialogue, you'll love this film. Pretty much every third line is an "oucher." I'm going to try and find this film on video and invite some friends over for a hoot of a time. If you're the type that enjoys movies that are so bad they're good, I highly recommend this film. Cheers!

Hmm. Some of the reviewers here have complained about the film's slow pacing. Well, yes...compared to the MTV style edited movies of the past 5 years, I'd have to agree. But, the pacing is also necessary in order to show the slow psychological breakdown of the lead character. It's a slow burn type of story, and the filmmakers were much more concerned with building a creepy atmosphere than bombarding us with CGI effects, blood and gore, and whatever else passes for supernatural horror these days.

Besides, Richard Burton on a bad day is better than most actors at their best.

If "Jason X" and other hollow, special effects driven films are your idea of horror...then this isn't the film for you. The Medusa Touch is a methodically paced thriller, aimed at genre fans who enjoy a more thoughtful kind of horror film. If you enjoyed "Don't Look Now," then this is the type of film for you.

If you have the rare opportunity to catch this obscure film, you should at least give it a fair shake. Then you can decide for yourself.