This 'Harvest of Fear' sequel is a better film overall, but still falls short of being great, in this reviewer's humble opinion. Most criticism of the first film was with the writing and the acting talent of the lead characters. Besides the obvious improvement of Justin Ament's abilities, those elements were not improved upon. In fact, the script was even more predictable and cliché this time out (I was whispering the dialog to my girlfriend a beat before it would fall out the actors' mouths), there were extraneous characters and story lines, silly scare tactics were way over-used, and aside from Ament, the young leads showed no improvement in their work. One actress was badly miscast in her role, most likely because she was willing to do the nudity. This is not to say that all of the actors missed the mark- Thomas Nabhan, Don Alder, and Curt Hanson, all veterans of Portland stage and screen, showed prowess in their roles. Another big problem with this movie is the makeup... this may be a little bit nit-picky, but the shot of young Jake with heavy eye shadow and lipstick was laughable, and Katie O'Grady (a beautiful woman and skilled actress) looked more like a call girl than an enthusiastic criminal justice student. Having seen 'Harvest of Fear', I began to wonder (about 30 minutes in) why this movie was taking me down the identical path as the first one, with no new twists in the plot. Eventually the ending came along and... BOOM! a plot twist for the sake of having a plot twist, albeit an unexpected one. This film does not need to be buried under a foam grave marker on a coastal cliff, and I'm sure fans of the genre will watch it once, but that's about all I can say about it.
4 Reviews
ARE WE STILL HAVING FUN?
nogodnomasters19 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A serial killer murders 12 people in Devil's Lake Oregon. Young Jake Barker was a witness to it as he watched his parents get slaughtered. 20 years late, policeman Jake Barker (Justin Ament) is on leave after Dr. James Peter Carpenter (Thomas Nathan) has been convicted of the 12 murders that happened 20 years ago and the 12 that happened now. He claims that he is innocent and that Billy (Ryan Deal) his assistant did it and framed him. Billy is also the guy who is dating Jake's ex girlfriend.
The film was boring. It really didn't build up any other suspects with possible motives. The acting and dialogue was bland. Worthy of passing up.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Wendy Watson)
The film was boring. It really didn't build up any other suspects with possible motives. The acting and dialogue was bland. Worthy of passing up.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Wendy Watson)
One hour and fifty-two minutes...
Roddenhyzer24 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, my friend, someone felt it necessary to produce a sequel to the already forgettable, but at least significantly shorter, "Harvest of Fear", and stretch it out to one hour and fifty-two minutes. I have no words.
Well, that's a lie. I have a few:
I think "Path of Evil"'s biggest problem, aside from overstaying its welcome by at least 30 minutes, is that it wastes too much time trying in vain to be a serious character drama, when it should be focusing on being the slasher flick it's being sold as. The overwhelming majority of the movie deals with the main character's baggage; his love for his ex-girlfriend, his drinking problem, his childhood trauma, and his inability to get his act back together again after the events of the first movie. Now, please don't get me wrong. Drama and murder certainly can blend well, the problem here is just that all those elements are not only *unbelievably* stock and cliché, they're also executed on a melodramatic "soap opera" level of quality.
It's not all bad, though. One thing I honestly liked about the movie was that the writers didn't treat the viewers of the first one like amnesiacs. None of the events of the previous movie were retconned in any way, and almost all the characters make a return. Pretty much the only offense to continuity is that the main character received a *massive* personality reboot, but that's fine by me, considering what a spectacular douchebag he was in the original. Such consistency is extremely rare for low budget horror sequels, so hats off to the writers for that. It does pose a tiny problem, however. The character who was revealed to be the killer who got away with it all in the first movie also appears in the sequel, and the people who remember this are probably not going to get too invested in the murder mystery aspect of this movie. There is a little surprise at the end, though, but don't hold your breath. Anyway, another thing of positive note are the gore effects, which are rather good for such a low budget production.
All in all, I don't think it was such a hot idea to take a movie like "Harvest of Fear", with horrendous characters and a weak story, and make an overly long sequel to it that's *all about* the characters and the story. It's almost as if the makers thought they had something of dramatic substance here, but ultimately, all this attempted seriousness just clashes with everything else and ends up as a hammy, drawn-out distraction that bogs down the entire movie.
Well, that's a lie. I have a few:
I think "Path of Evil"'s biggest problem, aside from overstaying its welcome by at least 30 minutes, is that it wastes too much time trying in vain to be a serious character drama, when it should be focusing on being the slasher flick it's being sold as. The overwhelming majority of the movie deals with the main character's baggage; his love for his ex-girlfriend, his drinking problem, his childhood trauma, and his inability to get his act back together again after the events of the first movie. Now, please don't get me wrong. Drama and murder certainly can blend well, the problem here is just that all those elements are not only *unbelievably* stock and cliché, they're also executed on a melodramatic "soap opera" level of quality.
It's not all bad, though. One thing I honestly liked about the movie was that the writers didn't treat the viewers of the first one like amnesiacs. None of the events of the previous movie were retconned in any way, and almost all the characters make a return. Pretty much the only offense to continuity is that the main character received a *massive* personality reboot, but that's fine by me, considering what a spectacular douchebag he was in the original. Such consistency is extremely rare for low budget horror sequels, so hats off to the writers for that. It does pose a tiny problem, however. The character who was revealed to be the killer who got away with it all in the first movie also appears in the sequel, and the people who remember this are probably not going to get too invested in the murder mystery aspect of this movie. There is a little surprise at the end, though, but don't hold your breath. Anyway, another thing of positive note are the gore effects, which are rather good for such a low budget production.
All in all, I don't think it was such a hot idea to take a movie like "Harvest of Fear", with horrendous characters and a weak story, and make an overly long sequel to it that's *all about* the characters and the story. It's almost as if the makers thought they had something of dramatic substance here, but ultimately, all this attempted seriousness just clashes with everything else and ends up as a hammy, drawn-out distraction that bogs down the entire movie.
Rather watch paint dry.
mario0808 May 2019
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
