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.

I don't care for thrillers, however, this one was better than most I've been forced to watch. I saw it on Sci-Fi, and watched it from beginning to end.That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the film. I'm not one to watch films if I become bored or if I dislike it.The highlight for me was a stupid bird flu joke, which, now, I cannot recall. It will drive me crazy all day. Care to help a gal? I enjoyed the film... was drawn into it and had the opportunity to leave half-way through it... but stayed til the end just because I was having a good time.It was enjoyable. Not bad.

JAIMIE Alexander is a young woman who inadvertently stumbles upon a town full of loonies who believe a legend about a demented preacher involved in human sacrifices. The ghost of a town is the wrong place for a gal like Alexander to be, for she's in immediate peril from them and a scarecrow that comes to life.It's all very reminiscent of every horror film ever made about cornfields and "children of the corn" and skies full of menacing black crows. This one had a lot of potential if it knew that the real scares would come from the scarecrow coming to life and had developed that theme in a more compelling way. The scarecrow angle could have been played for better thrills.BRIAN McNAMARA, as the town sheriff who knows more than he's willing to say about everything, is fine, but JAIMIE Alexander gives the impression that she's not capable or willing to give the role of the distraught woman more than a basic reading.I just happened to come across it while surfing cable TV and stayed tuned to see whether it developed into a logical fright film. It didn't. Too many loopholes and implausible circumstances throughout, but it was at least an average thriller of its kind. The cornfield scenes were extremely well photographed but there was a tacky "direct to TV" look about the rest of the film.

Every week I stop into Blockbuster and rent the new direct to video horror movie and every week I'm pretty much disappointed. Most are shot with non-actors in lead roles, some with home video equipment. Some are boring and some are painful. This is the rare gem of a movie in this field of crap.For a direct to video feature, the movie has scope. Yes, the CGI isn't top notch but great CGI doesn't make a great movie.This is a horror movie with complex characters that does not conform to a specific genre's rules. It could easily have been a scarecrow slasher movie with lots of dead teenagers but it tries for more.I applaud it for that.For those direct to video junkies like myself, Hallowed Ground has great production value, great acting (for the genre), and best of all...An original concept.