First of all I absolutely adore horror movies about killer scarecrows for example William Wesley's "Scarecrows" is an classic of B-movie horror."Dark Harvest" plays like an unofficial sequel of it.A broken down van strands a group of college students in the middle of the desert.Forced to hike their way out they unwittingly enter a sacred Indian burial ground.There is a bloodthirsty scarecrow on the loose that promptly starts killing them...Very bad and amateurish horror flick with some of the worst acting I have ever seen.The action moves at snail's pace,the film drags relentlessly and the killer scarecrow looks poor.There is a bit of nudity for anyone interested.It's no surprise that "Dark Harvest" aka "Bloody Harvest" is completely obscure.Death reaps what you sow.Yeah,right.3 scarecrows out of 10.
8 Reviews
Dark Harvest: light on scares, big on boobs.
BA_Harrison3 October 2018
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).
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).
There are scarecrows in that thar desert.
Hey_Sweden8 October 2017
A septet of young adults go on a hiking / horseback riding excursion in the desert, led by a guide named Alex (Cooper Steve Anderson). Wouldn't you know it: the locale they're travelling through includes a former Indian burial ground, and those places are always ripe for freaky things in the horror genre. The group will end up menaced not only by local rednecks, but by the murderous scarecrows proliferating in the area.
The first two thirds of this minor genre item are actually not as bad as you'd think, given that this particular obscurity was of the "SOV" (or shot on video) variety. Writer / director James I. Nicholson does go out of his way to try to flesh out his characters, and make them more than one dimensional cannon fodder. The actors are also reasonably likable, and Nicholson does subvert expectations in terms of who will be the last characters standing. Since the budget for this was probably next to nothing, expect the cheapest possible visuals and makeup effects. But you can *also* expect some fairly decent atmosphere, and the occasional guffaw when the scarecrows pop up and utter a one-liner. Yup, Nicholson is not taking his little film *that* seriously.
Where the film ultimately descends into typical "so bad it's good" cheese and camp is in its final third, when the killings finally begin in earnest. Then the performances, and the dialogue, become ever so much worse.
Some of the characters do become insufferable, like Tom (David Zyler) and Jude (Tracy Vivat). Then you become impatient, waiting for them to get theirs. Sex and violence are doled out adequately, with some of the ladies taking off their tops, and the scarecrows gleefully enjoying their own acts of sadism.
Not bad entertainment for fans of the entire SOV genre.
Five out of 10.
The first two thirds of this minor genre item are actually not as bad as you'd think, given that this particular obscurity was of the "SOV" (or shot on video) variety. Writer / director James I. Nicholson does go out of his way to try to flesh out his characters, and make them more than one dimensional cannon fodder. The actors are also reasonably likable, and Nicholson does subvert expectations in terms of who will be the last characters standing. Since the budget for this was probably next to nothing, expect the cheapest possible visuals and makeup effects. But you can *also* expect some fairly decent atmosphere, and the occasional guffaw when the scarecrows pop up and utter a one-liner. Yup, Nicholson is not taking his little film *that* seriously.
Where the film ultimately descends into typical "so bad it's good" cheese and camp is in its final third, when the killings finally begin in earnest. Then the performances, and the dialogue, become ever so much worse.
Some of the characters do become insufferable, like Tom (David Zyler) and Jude (Tracy Vivat). Then you become impatient, waiting for them to get theirs. Sex and violence are doled out adequately, with some of the ladies taking off their tops, and the scarecrows gleefully enjoying their own acts of sadism.
Not bad entertainment for fans of the entire SOV genre.
Five out of 10.
Bad but I've seen worse
jeedaybob24 September 2006
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.
OH.. MY.. GOD!!
seanisean14 December 2004
I am one of those people who will seek fulfillment in the viewing of hard to obtain trashy low budget films deemed so bad that they're good... however, under no circumstance can I even begin to describe how bad this film really is... for it was so bad that I now reside in the relatively safe practice of paint by numbers, all because I mentally could not bear to see another mistake like this. Please don't feel you must now go and watch this film simply for what is been said here, because I mean every word... if you feel you must, then consider this! You may want try eating raw putrefying entrails instead, simply because you will gain much more satisfaction from this, than enduring this utterly harrowing lethargy of motion pictures.
It was my own fault! I felt I had to see it through to the end, thinking somehow that I was hardcore, It was a self-inflicted punishment, I believed I could handle it.... And now its too late, almost 90 minutes of my life is truly gone, and i'll never get it back.
Save yourself from this, learn from my mistake.... do the ironing, or inflict paper cuts on the webs of your toes, JUST Don't DO IT....
It was my own fault! I felt I had to see it through to the end, thinking somehow that I was hardcore, It was a self-inflicted punishment, I believed I could handle it.... And now its too late, almost 90 minutes of my life is truly gone, and i'll never get it back.
Save yourself from this, learn from my mistake.... do the ironing, or inflict paper cuts on the webs of your toes, JUST Don't DO IT....
It Would Certainly Be the Worst Film I Have Ever Watched... But I Stopped the Video on 20 Minutes. It Was Impossible to Finish Watching Such a Amateurish Garbage
claudio_carvalho21 April 2004
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')
Title (Brazil): `O Campo do Terror' (`The Field of Terror')
Watch out for the evil killer scarecrows!
Woodyanders12 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A group of various annoying folks who are on some kind of nature hike find themselves stuck in the middle of nowhere after their van breaks down. The group stumble across a sacred Indian burial ground that's watched over by a malevolent killer scarecrow.
Boy, does this hilariously horrendous hunk of junk possess all the right wrong stuff to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie: We've got flat (non)direction by James I. Nicholson (who also wrote the silly script), a plodding pace, tacky gore, irritating bickering characters (whiny and abrasive New York City shrew Jude in particular rates as an especially obnoxious ordeal to put up with), a hysterically hokey and unconvincing scarecrow, zero tension or spooky atmosphere, a meandering narrative, and rank amateurish acting by a lame no-name cast. On the plus side, Nicholson makes neat use of the desolate desert locations and several women bare their breasts in the name of low-grade exploitation. A total cruddy hoot.
Boy, does this hilariously horrendous hunk of junk possess all the right wrong stuff to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie: We've got flat (non)direction by James I. Nicholson (who also wrote the silly script), a plodding pace, tacky gore, irritating bickering characters (whiny and abrasive New York City shrew Jude in particular rates as an especially obnoxious ordeal to put up with), a hysterically hokey and unconvincing scarecrow, zero tension or spooky atmosphere, a meandering narrative, and rank amateurish acting by a lame no-name cast. On the plus side, Nicholson makes neat use of the desolate desert locations and several women bare their breasts in the name of low-grade exploitation. A total cruddy hoot.
Reaping and Sowing!
alleywayhorror2 November 2021
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
