|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||56 reviews in total|
I have to say I enjoyed this movie. When I got my hands on it there
wasn't much info about it here except negative stuff so I wasn't really
expecting much. Still I decided(like always after seeing a new movie w/
no ratings yet bashed here) to peep the trailer. The trailer gave the
impression that it could go either way so I decided to give it a shot.
I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be a nice little Horror movie. Even though at times It felt like I was watching a TV movie it still held my attention throughout the film. Most of the characters were only one one dimensional, but its a horror flick so thats forgivable. The unfolding of the back-story of the house was done just right not getting ahead of itself and becoming too predictable. Generally a good flick for a rainy Sunday afternoon or a late-night movie.
Probably only deserves a 6, but since I love Horror flicks and this movie had about 20 "1" ratings before it was even released I gave it a 7.
IBMD really shouldn't allow people to vote on movies before they're released because all the people with grudges against the writers/directors come along and vote 1. Or the opposite happens and the whole film crew gives it 10's which prompts trolls to counter it with 1's and the crazy loop continues. Anyway, final vote is a 7.
Recommended to those who like Haunted house films.
I got to watch this movie for Scarecrow killer, nails and CJ Thomason. Movie starts right away, five young people driving and suddenly... bam. Don't want to tell the whole story right away. True, the movie is full of plot holes and unexplained things and it's not realistic. But, if you are a horror fan who is not seeking for 'most rational movie award', but instead a great fright, this should do. Two things I loved about this movie are that it's very spooky and unpredictable. Atmosphere is dark and corn field, scarecrow, abandoned house and crows are just a bonus. Blood is realistic and the fear is all around. Trust me, you'll never be board. And I dare you, after you see the cast, just please tell me who's gonna be a main character. I really dare you. It's not your typical virgin, yet proud and brave teenage girl. Three main characters are easy to connect with. The acting is very good. And the killer is awesome looking. Of course that his back-story is very vague, full of unexplained things and incomplete, but at least he looks cool and kills in a very nasty ways. I think it's actually a pretty good horror movie. Not a complete movie with everything about everyone, but a really good segment what happens in an abandoned cursed corn field. Don't expect an Academy Award winning drama, but suspense is guaranteed.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
husk is a movie that, starting out, i felt was going to be the same as
every other slasher in the genre. its cliché right off the bat but
around 1/3 in it starts to get rather interesting with this whole
supernatural side of things going on and not just some dude in a mask
with a taste for murder.
the acting, direction, script and dialogue is all at times questionable such as characters doing the things you know you'd just not do in such a situation. they say things you wouldn't say, or at times Don't do things you WOULD do such as panic, cry, or just do whatever it takes to get the hell out of the way of whats butchering your friends.
all-in-all though id give HUSK a 6 out of 10. its quite worthy of a watch if you can look through a couple cliché's and some dodgy actors/direction because there's some really neat touches, scares, and new takes on the genre.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It's still pretty refreshing for a genre that's still holding on to the Saw/Hostel phase pretty firmly. It's not another remake that's PG-13 and made for a quick buck. All in all, I liked Dead Birds better, but this is based on a short film from 2005(and may have been written before Dead Birds came out.) The acting is freaking solid all around, while a few characters make horrible decisions, the writing isn't bad. Don't dismiss it because of its low score, because this is far better than a 4.6. And scarecrows and corn fields always manage to be a good setting(especially when you throw in an old house.) Oh, and it has a few solid jump scares, and not just the throwing a cat out of nowhere style that Carpenter and other greats have talked about. It was nice to have a horror film as a premiere on Sci Fi instead of another Sharktopus film or whatever Sy Fy has. Felt like a throwback to back in 2004-2007 when occasionally the premieres were films you wanted to see.
Husk CATCH IT (B) Husk is a combination of Jeepers Creepers and Children of the Corn (Kind of). The film follows five friends on a weekend holiday who become stranded in a secluded farmland after wild crows attack their SUV. The friends soon realize that the cornfields are inhabited by reanimated, vicious human scarecrows who produce their offspring by killing anyone they get a hold of and force their undead victims to join their ranks. Even though the story and characters are cliché there is a good screenplay to it. C.J. Thomason as Chris, Devon Graye as Scott, Wes Chatham as Brian, Tammin Sursok as Natalie and Ben Easter as Johnny did a decent job. Overall, I had fun time getting scared of the Husk, it's not something out of the box but it's not mediocre either. Good time pass.
Not entirely bad but also far from good. It's a teen-slasher, done by
the "1 by 1"-formula, so it has naturally major holes in the narrative
and is 100% predictable. Following well exploited ingredients play a
major role: cornfield, lone house in middle west, scarecrow, scary
stitches. Unsolvable mystery: a car that stops working because it
rolled in a ditch. The movie is professionally done, which in this case
means that it is a consumer product, not very imaginative and lacking
depth in the storytelling. My guess is that it came into existence
because someone wanted to make a quick dollar. If it had a message, it
was well hidden.
I kind of liked the overall atmosphere. I also thought the sound was done well and the acting was not embarrassing, so I gave it 4 points. Yes, I feel generous today..
I didn't have any expectations going in to this flick and have never really been interested in scarecrow horror but thought I'd give it a try. I have to say I really liked this movie. No it's not a block-buster or anything but lately I've realised that is actually a GOOD thing more often than not. The acting is great, production is fine. There are a couple of flaws but nothing worth moaning on about and I liked that the characters behaviour wasn't too stupid. Also a lot of stereotypes were avoided so the flick had a fresh feel to it. The one female character (played by Tammin Sursock) was excellent, both the character & the actor and I also liked the guy she was initially having issues with (Chris?). Some things needed better explanation and the ending was a bit lame (there really wasn't any logic behind the big collapse & not being able to speak thing - or if there was it was too easy to miss) but still a decent scary flick with old skool flavour. Not too gory and some nice jump scares as well as well crafted creepiness. Also, reading some of these reviews - particularly the negative ones, it seems to me that either people didn't actually watch it OR they skimmed through missing out bits because many of them have their facts wrong LOL. Trust me, this isn't a masterpiece but it's definitely worth a rent. It's one of the better ones. I've given it a 7 to help boost it's rating as I believe it's undeservedly low. It's probably really a 5 - 6 pointer tho.
When I marked this movie to record, the 1988 Scarecrows came to mind,
and made me come up with a small checklist of things which I would like
to see: the scarecrow would have to have a good design (they have to
look pretty decent, or no one would take this movie seriously), and a
decent plot and back-story. More so, the main characters have to be
realistic enough as to not make me sigh in pity for the movie. The
camera angles aren't too crucial, nor the music, but they do have the
potential to add to a movie. This movie had all the requirements I
would have liked, though some of them could have been improved.
The scarecrows had my approval of being threatening, malevolent beings. Their make- up/costume was pretty cool, I think. The back-story behind the scarecrows was interesting, though why only the nerdy characters could see the flashback, I don't know. Also, for the most part, the actors played their parts pretty well. One of the things I think that this movie does quite well is the avoidance of the normal cliché slasher-movie characters. There's no blonde-haired girl who's messing with three guys' affections or a shy, well-behaving female who survives the onslaught. This just has four males and one female, and they all get along with each other decently well.
I found this rather nice for a change. As aforementioned, I didn't care too much for how we found out about the origin of the scarecrows (via flashbacks that only one character could see), but I can try to look past that. Also, the chess analogy with such little evidence concerned me a bit, but it wasn't too big of a plot point, so I can deal with that also. Gore-wise, this had some pretty painful-looking deaths and injuries, but as I only saw an edited version, I don't know how much total bloodshed this had to offer.
Overall, I feel that this movie is something that a horror movie fan should be able to watch without grimacing. 7.5/10, rounded down to 7 to fit IMDb.
Horror, I find is the one genre, where the bad films are more popular
than the good ones. Something about people wanting to hate that they
love them or something. So while they're busy spending hours on end
watching brain-eating zombies and giant insects, good ones like 'Husk'
are often neglected. I'm a huge fan of the genre and hadn't even heard
of this flick, until it appeared on my suggestions column.
'Husk' is a film that mixes elements of monster horror and ghost horror, that I appreciated for a change. Because on their own, they often tend to become a little predictable and ultimately, not scary at all. 'Husk', however had it's spine chilling moments, and few that made me jump. Clearly not a very high budget film, it makes good use of it's resources. There were no major effects on screen and no real gore either. It was done tastefully.
The characters were quite one dimensional, but I appreciated that the underdog was given the main focus, rather than the hot chick or the jock. In addition to this, Husk successfully maintains a level of mystery throughout the flick and it wasn't a very obvious twist. However, the one issue I had with the film was the climax. Compared to the rest of film that explained every little detail and left no loose ends, the ending was a huge question mark. If it was meant to be one of those 'you decide' kinda moments, then it was done poorly. It felt abrupt and was a little disappointing compared to how well executed the rest was.
Overall, it was a good flick, especially if you're someone who misses old school horror and good old scary scarecrows and mass murderer ghosts!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I had never read anything about this movie and bought it cheaply
thinking that at best I might get a laugh out of it, but this movie
came as a pleasant surprise.
The movie starts off typically, college students in a car, car runs off the road, no mobile phone reception, let's see if the rustic farmhouse has a phone and the ending writes itself, ho-hum it's been done to death right? But if you get through the first few minutes you'll notice that there are subtle differences with Husk.
For starters, the group aren't the vapid, early twenty somethings that you normally get. The dialogue is remotely intelligent for a horror movie and the characters seem to have brains. Secondly there's only one girl in the group of five, so there's no catty backstabbing or obsession over appearance & shoes, and worthy of note, she gets dispatched early on, so there's no irrational screaming at every noise or shadow throughout the movie. Thirdly there are some genuinely tense moments that you no longer get with Scarecrow franchises. The claustrophobic feeling of the cornfield is well done, as is the idea that the recently killed are possessed & made to sew together their own scarecrow mask on a pedal powered sewing machine. Skewering their fingers with nails for an effective disabling weapon is a nice touch. Also this movie has a better explanation,(via flashbacks), on why things are happening.
The movie doesn't really break any new ground and it's not without its clichés, but it's fresh enough to hold your interest throughout the movie. I gave this 6 because I enjoyed it up until the final scene. The ending just plain sucked, as it's not even an ending. It's as if the writers had a sudden craving for Chinese take-away & RedBull and took off before it was finished. Up until that moment it's a decent movie and one that is worth a look. Just pray they don't ruin it further with a haphazard sequel.
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|