Rish Outfield's reviews
Not terrible, not great. It was a lot like Pumpkinhead or The Golem or an X-Files episode I saw recently. The plot was dumb and illogical, as were the characters. Still, compared to the similarly-plotted Jack-O, this is a multiple-viewer.
Mostly, Night of the Scarecrow was forgettable. And while that is not a crime, many times, these horror movies seem to aspire to that--do just as much as you can to be like every other horror movie, but don't exert the energy required to create something special. And I suppose (in a way) it's understandable. These movies are going to make money, and the cheaper and least-taxing the making of the movie, the more profitable it will be wallet-wise. But if any future horror filmmakers are reading this, put a little art and care into your projects, even if you don't get paid extra for it, even if everyone else around you is taking the easiest road possible, even if you think anyone will notice. One thing doing these reviews have taught me is that a horror film doesn't have to be expensive or even well-done to be entertaining, but it does have to have something unique about it, some kind of personal touch. Is that a lot to ask?

The tyranist's thoughts
This movie is perfectly fine until they try to tell us the history of the villain. I don't really care. Can't we just have an evil scarecrow running around without a half an hour of flash backs to tell us how he came to be. I realize that they need the exposition to set up the conclusion, but still. They could have just said it and showed a couple of short scenes instead of making a film within the film. This is a slasher movie. We don't need a lot of overwhelmingly thought out background. I'm just happy that somebody is hacking up the townsfolk (who all are related by the way).
The best thing I can say about this movie is that Bruce Glover was in it. He makes me think of many better movies.