Liz Chambers (a solid and sympathetic performance by fetching brunette Jaimie Alexander) finds herself stuck in a small town after her car breaks down. Chambers soon discovers the town's grisly past involving a crazed deceased priest and his legacy of sacrifices. Liz eventually winds up thrust into a battle for survival with the deranged locals as well as a lethal murderous scarecrow.Writer/director David Benullo relates the derivative, yet still effective and enjoyable story at a quick pace, delivers a decent amount of mild gore, and builds a reasonable amount of tension and spooky atmosphere (the scarecrow in particular is genuinely creepy and unnerving). Moreover, the sound acting from the capable cast holds this picture together: Chloe Grace Moretz does well as frightened little girl Sabrina, Brian McNamara likewise registers nicely as the earnest Sheriff O'Connor, Nick Chinlund has a field day as evil preacher Jonas Hatheway, and Hudson Leick provides plenty of winning spark as eager and unscrupulous tabloid newspaper reporter Sarah Austin. Keith J. Duggan's sharp cinematography provides a neat stylish look. Neal Acree's spirited shivery score does the rousing trick. Marred by some regrettably cruddy CGI, this one overall still sizes up as a better than average shocker.

OK, let's start off by saying this is not "Halloween," "The Exorcist," or its ilk. It is B-Movie horror, which is fine. The people giving this movie 1 out of 10 and whining about "bad CGI" obviously didn't bother to look at the budget of the film ($1.5 million - considerably lower than the classic horror blockbusters). Is it predictable? Of course it is. So what? If you were expecting to sit down and watch a timeless classic, you should have rented "Casablanca" or "The Wizard of Oz." Ranting about bad acting (which, while not the best acting in the world, is certainly not the worst) and bad directing (if you can do better, let's see it), and claiming that anyone who gave it a good review "obviously" worked on the movie (oh, you're omniscient now?) makes for a really amateur review. If you didn't like the movie, that's your opinion, but at least give actual examples of why you thought the acting and directing were bad, and don't shoot off at the mouth insulting reviewers who disagreed with you. Just because someone has only reviewed one movie on IMDb doesn't automatically mean they worked on that movie. Maybe they actually have a life and don't have time to review five billion movies like some people apparently can.Now, as I say, this isn't some high-caliber horror flick that is going to win an Oscar. It isn't meant to be. It is a fun suspense flick that makes for nice Halloween fare for a horror movie marathon. The plot isn't completely unique, but it is a decent concept of good vs evil. It utilizes the idea of someone perverting religion to suit his own needs, and we see the consequences of that - pure evil. We have a protagonist that is not perfect, but is overall a decent human being. The cinematographers make good use of lighting, though I would have liked to see more usage of angles to make the views more dramatic. I'm not sure why people are complaining about "bad CGI," since there is very little CGI used in the film, and it is certainly not needed. People have become far too dependent upon seeing flashy SFX in order to be entertained. The acting is sometimes a little stilted, but for the most part, the emotion is raw and realistic.The important thing to remember is that this is low-budget horror meant to entertain horror fans. If you don't "get it," that may be why. If you are used to only going to the movies to see lots of blood, explosions, and cleavage, with everything neatly wrapped up so you don't have to think, then this movie isn't for you. Not everyone is going to enjoy these types of movies. Insulting those who do doesn't make you a good reviewer, though, it just makes you immature.

This is my first IMDb review, and I'll keep it short.I watched this movie on the sci-fi channel during the never ending writers strike when nothing good was on TV. I expected it to be a poorly acted generic horror flick, which it was. The acting wasn't AWFUL, but it was far from good. The plot was really bland and predictable. It basically borrows from classic horror flicks (e.g. Children of the Corn) and doesn't contain much in the way of originality. Also, I am incredibly easily creeped out by horror movies, and this barely had an effect on me.All in all, I wouldn't recommend it. It isn't scary, the acting and characters make you cringe constantly, and there isn't anything interesting about the story.

After she becomes stranded in a small town, a young woman (played by Jaimie Alexander of "Rest Stop") discovers her arrival there was foretold a century earlier by the town's founding preacher and that she is an integral part of his impending -- and terrifying -- rebirth. Oh, and there's a scarecrow that likes to kill people, too.So I waited too long to write this review and the film is no longer fresh in my mind. Therefore, I cannot make very good specific criticisms. Sorry. But maybe the film isn't worth a thorough dissemination, as it really wasn't particularly good. I enjoy Jaimie Alexander, so it was nice to see her in another horror movie (are you a horror actress or a TV actress, Jaimie?) but besides that... I don't know.Having seen both "Superstition" and "Horror Rises From the Tomb" this year, the idea of a prophecy that has an old religious fanatic coming back from the grave really wasn't a shocking new development in cinema for me. So this time it was a preacher instead of a warlock or witch... it was still a man who believes in the supernatural who had turned to killing in order to get his way with things, so there's not really a huge stretch.What really struck me as the mistake with this film is the focus on the city of believers (not unlike "The Reaping" or any other film with a religious, isolated city) and not so much on the scarecrow that came back to kill people. I didn't quite understand the scarecrow, but I wanted to see more of him (an maybe get a better background). People with cult beliefs just don't do it for me, unless there's some really, really good explanation (which there rarely is). I'd complain about the cop being in on the whole thing, but I already made that complaint today in my review for "Lake Dead"... just stop it already! Should I complain about the gas station being in on it, too? You know, like "House of 1000 Corpses" or "Vacancy" or many others? Do all these small towns take notes from the same textbook?Sure, you get a crucifixion. I like them, you like them... we all like seeing people nailed to the cross. Some of us like to look at this sort of thing once a week or more (I'm not one of those people). So there's blood. I don't recall any nudity, though... unfortunately. I mean, I like Jaimie Alexander with clothe on -- she's classy. But she had a friend in the film... if you're going to die anyway, why not just take your shirt off?Like I said, I cannot make very good specific complaints. But I wasn't impressed. Everything about this film reeked off some other films. Oh, scarecrows like "Jeepers Creepers" or corn rows like... "Children of the Corn"? And I've already made numerous other references in this review. I suppose if you're going to rent this, you're going to rent this. Some of you may even be gullible enough to buy it. But I want you to know if you're going to do it, it's not going to be because of me. My copy is getting less play than Richard Simmons at the Playboy Mansion.