the audience applauded

Absolutely Fantastic

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Apparently, there are a few hundred people on this site that are going to think I'm nuts. But for a low budget, direct to video B-horror film, I thought Dark Harvest was OK. It's certainly not great, it is not very original, but for low-budget slasher fun it was worth a cheap rental.On the negative side, the script needed a few more re-writes. The idea wasn't bad for this sort of film, but it has many of the first-time writer mistakes. The dialog was lame (though not so lame it was irritating). Dialog is often a big problem with new writers. The acting was also mediocre, but no worse than a lot of low budget indie horror flicks. And they should have ditched the cheesy sound effects during shots of the scarecrows up on their poles. That was just stupid. On the positive side, the directing and lighting were actually competent. Not great, but just basically competent. I could see this as a Film student's senior project that got a B-. Note that I did NOT say a filmmaker with his Masters making his second or third film. This director needs to study the horror and drama genres more, but this was an OK first effort. With a little more study and experience, he could evolve into a very good director. And I thought it delivered what a low budget slasher film should deliver in terms of kills.If you're curious what I think a really bad film is, see "The House That Screamed" or "Meat for Satan's Icebox" or "Satan's Cheerleaders" or either of the sequels to this film. My idea of the best in low budget horror, see the original "Night of the Living Dead", the original "Halloween" or the original "Black Christmas" (or if you're in a particularly sick mood, "Basket Case"). And bare in mind, I see a lot of low-budget direct to video horror films and I'm pretty forgiving of B films. I'm sure the other reviewers here would say I'm too forgiving in this case.This film is a decent Halloween time horror film. It's not the best direct to video film I've seen, but it's far from the worst.P.S. WARNING: Typical stupid horny guy comment ahead.I don't usually watch horror films for nudity, so a little T&A goes a long way for me. But I have to say that Jeanie Cheek and Jessica Dunphy are pretty women who have really hot bods and beautiful breasts and I hope they read this. But as another reviewer wrote, there's is not enough nudity to be worth renting the movie just for that alone.

First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2. Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4.

Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 2/10

Anyone who thinks this is the worst movie they have ever seen is completely naive and blinded. I can think of at least 30 movies that are endlessly worse than this film. Sure the acting is weak, the special effects aren't very special, it's cheap, etc. etc. But at least it has boobs,blood and got me to watch it for 75 minutes. I've BEEN in much more poorly made films (Feeding The Masses is absolutely terrible) and I can say it's not half as bad as some of the other direct to video stuff I've been seeing on the shelves these days. You want bad? Go check out The Fanglys or Carnivore...NOW THOSE are bad films. Listen, at least the film isn't boring. There's nothing worse than a low/no budget film that is boring. If you can handle low budget movies, there's really nothing THAT horrible about this one.