It took over 40 years for a sequel to appear for DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW (1981), which tells the story of a mentally handicapped man who is unjustly killed while hiding inside a scarecrow, and whose spirit takes supernatural revenge on his murderers.
The original was very straightforward in telling the story, but handled everything in a solid manner: it had a decent plot, the acting and cinematography were executed well, and it was very atmospheric.
The central concept of the movie was that the possessed scarecrow did not actually kill anyone (at least not actively, shall we say), but served as a harbinger of death for those who saw it. They would subsequently fall victim to events which conspired to prove deadly, an idea that was earlier realized, for example, in THE OMEN (1975) and later most conspicuously in FINAL DESTINATION (2000).
I think this concept made the supernatural threat even more menacing because it was not "localized" in a scarecrow but could appear anywhere. It was an effective horror device.
The sequel was written by J. D. Feigelson, who also wrote the original, but inexplicably changes the central concept to turn the scarecrow into a killing entity, thereby rendering the movie not only essentially indistinguishable from a million other slasher movies, but also making it sillier. Ray Bradbury is listed as a story consultant, though he died almost 10 years before this film was made.
There is no atmosphere to speak of, the plot is not only contrived but confusing, and the acting holds no water to the original. The dialogue is also weaker. I actually noticed this only due to contrast when I heard the only decent piece of dialogue toward the end, when the main villain ambushes the protagonist, a lady who moved to the area with her young son.
All in all, this forgettable horror movie is an unworthy sequel to the original.
The original was very straightforward in telling the story, but handled everything in a solid manner: it had a decent plot, the acting and cinematography were executed well, and it was very atmospheric.
The central concept of the movie was that the possessed scarecrow did not actually kill anyone (at least not actively, shall we say), but served as a harbinger of death for those who saw it. They would subsequently fall victim to events which conspired to prove deadly, an idea that was earlier realized, for example, in THE OMEN (1975) and later most conspicuously in FINAL DESTINATION (2000).
I think this concept made the supernatural threat even more menacing because it was not "localized" in a scarecrow but could appear anywhere. It was an effective horror device.
The sequel was written by J. D. Feigelson, who also wrote the original, but inexplicably changes the central concept to turn the scarecrow into a killing entity, thereby rendering the movie not only essentially indistinguishable from a million other slasher movies, but also making it sillier. Ray Bradbury is listed as a story consultant, though he died almost 10 years before this film was made.
There is no atmosphere to speak of, the plot is not only contrived but confusing, and the acting holds no water to the original. The dialogue is also weaker. I actually noticed this only due to contrast when I heard the only decent piece of dialogue toward the end, when the main villain ambushes the protagonist, a lady who moved to the area with her young son.
All in all, this forgettable horror movie is an unworthy sequel to the original.