Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Josh Bullock This movie did several things right in my opinion. The acting was actually good, usually when i see no familiar actors i am taken out of the experience when i see cheesy acting and this did not happen here. I like the story and the setting although it would have been nice if they through something else besides a house a road and cornfields. I see the point of making you feel like your there and not distracted by scenes before or after the cornfield. Besides the location only one thing stands out as needing work and that is the back story on how this killer or entity got to where we are now. One of the guys randomly gets visions that give you just enough for a vague understanding of how things got the way they are. I would have liked to see more scenes or information on the killer and how he got that way and realistic proof or evidence of what happened other than visions. But all in all this movie did more right then wrong and if you like intense horrors style flicks i think you will enjoy as well.

BA_Harrison As far as soil-your-pants, creepy-ass movie characters go, only the clown has a slight edge over the scarecrow (unless the scarecrow is wearing a curly wig, a big red nose, face paint and a squirty flower, in which case the scarecrow wins hands down). Husk's sack-headed monstrosities sure are unsettling to look at, but they are made even more scary by the fact that they can move like the clappers and have very sharp nails in their fingers (metal nails—the type you hit with a hammer!).Attacking with lightning speed and remarkable ferocity, these fleet-footed frights whittle down an unfortunate group of friends who crash their car by the side of a cornfield after ploughing headlong into a flock of crows. Seeking refuge in a dilapidated farmhouse, the pals try to figure out how to get back to the road without being killed and turned into scarecrows themselves.Killer scarecrows are nothing new in the world of horror (see Dark Night of the Scarecrow, Scarecrows, Messengers 2: The Scarecrow, Scarecrow Gone Wild, Dark Harvest), Husk's characters are two dimensional, and much of its action can easily be labelled as predictable, but writer/director Brett Simmons more than compensates for his familiar foes, cookie-cutter victims and expected developments with a rollicking pace and several genuinely clever touches.Simmons kicks the action off almost immediately and kills off the only female early in his film, putting paid to the tired 'final girl' trope that plagues many a modern horror movie; he also introduces an ingenious plot device that ensures that only one scarecrow can attack at any given time, which gives the remaining characters a faint glimmer of hope. Another nice touch sees the scarecrow losing its power when unmasked. It's unique elements like these that go to make his film a very enjoyable and satisfyingly scary flick.

michaelsme615 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.

thekarmicnomad I only found out about this film as it was a question on a movie quiz. After watching the movie I realised why I had never heard of it.It is not bad by any stretch of the imagination, in fact it is painfully average.The acting is good, as is the script and camera work and the premise is good also. The corn field has been used in horror movies of the past to great effect. The rustling leaves, the disorientating walls of corn stalk; being both isolated and exposed at the same time. Scary stuff.This film doesn't really attempt to capitalise on this, it uses the corn field as a simple barrier to hem the characters in.Some of the scenes in the farm are spooky, which is the high point in this middle-flat-line film.One of the reasons I am writing this review is to remind me I have seen this movie as I am sure by tomorrow I would have forgotten it almost entirely.