Review for Husk (2010)

Husk (2010)

Dir: Bret A. Simmons

Film

Scarecrows should be terrifying. Should be. They are withered, scraggly abominations conjured up to ward off birds… in the shape of an impersonation of a dead person.

However, the most frightening interpretation I have seen of one has been in a Ghost Rider comic, scripted by Howard Mackie in the early Nineties. During this, a Scarecrow costume-wearing maniac murdered random innocent bystanders on the street in order to earn the attention of Captain America. Playing on the iconic Scarecrow appearance, artist Mark Texiera made a rather average villain, a disturbing entity.

In cinema, the sub-genre of Scarecrow movies has a somewhat spotty history… 1988 b-movie "Scarecrows" stands head and shoulders above the rest for many people, while 1981 entry "Dark Night of the Scarecrow" (starring Charles Durning) has the respect of genre aficionados, who feel it successfully escaped it's TV-movie trappings.

In reality though, the subject matter has often been limited to the unimaginative and resulted in rather average low budget fare. Husk I can report, dabbles in this area, but with lashings of other genre staples.

A murder of crows cannonballs into the front window of a car, travelling through rural America carrying five teenagers. One lad immediately goes missing, while the others gather their senses and ponder what to do. The sole female of the group seems destined to be the focal point, perhaps the lone survivor, and the main protagonist. That she isn't is the one plot point to surprise, however things descend into the dire from there. They obviously split up to find their comrade, trawling through a corn-field (teenagers in horror films always split up, a development that absolutely drives me nuts), and without ruining the plot, one cast member ends up suffering a gruesome death, which is unfortunately filmed in a rather murky, unclear manner, even though the visual should be really strong. They discover a house beyond the cornfield, which needless to say, is not a comforting place. There all manner of strange incidents happen, and as they investigate the house, what is actually happening is apparent to us much more quickly than he dim-witted victims. Cue lots of flash-backs, repetitive shots of characters being pulled into the fields, and young un's generally being absolute arseholes to one another.

The first act of the movie is a complete rip-off of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". An isolated location, a sinister house in the midst of a farm, and crew of somewhat moronic teenagers ambling about clearly on the path to death. Really, the strong part of this is that there is a slight element of mystery, for a while, though it's simply a matter of guessing which genre staple they're heading towards.

Sprinkled through though, are strong associations with "Children of the Corn". Yes, there are corn fields. But there is also a hint of a cult aspect, that gradually disintegrates as the film unfolds. It's a pity, because this perhaps could have been the way to go, in which to avoid plummeting into low-rent stalk-and-slash fare. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens, resulting in a horrendous back-story to explain everything and a rather dull finale. One character in particularly endures an absolutely insane degree of violence inflicted upon himself, and appears almost immortal at one point, killing any remaining credibility the film may have.

One issue that dents the believability of the film if also the dynamic between the group of characters involved in the situation. Unlike many horror film, taken individually, they're not that annoying, and could have perhaps proven to be a worthy collective of empathetic victims. Sadly, they don't work as a bunch, instead coming across as a random assortment of individuals travelling together with little apparent knowledge, interest, or care for one another. It may seem like such a minor quibble, but when a script cannot provide a believable group, why should we care what happens to them? Why is this gathering of misfits together in the first place? Why hasn't the trademark jock simply clobbered the mysterious dude with stubble who he neither seems to know, or have anything in common with?

Extras

The review disk of this was a bare-bones edition ,which I believe to be identical to the final release.

Conclusion

By no means a great piece of work, it would be somewhat harsh of me though, to say that Husk is a poor film. It's serviceable the whole way. Perhaps, in one sense, that is the issue… it is entirely routine, efficient, and to a large degree, pedestrian. An early hint of suspense quickly gives way to cliché, and it amounts to tedium. The opening shot of a scare-crow in recent French entry, "Caged" is more unsettling than this entire picture.

There are some strong moments in Husk, particularly in the formative stages of the Scarecrow attack, that threaten to become very effective indeed. However, an ostensibly silly plot spoils that somewhat, as the tired and derivative family background story pads out a somewhat repetitive movie.

It looks and sounds grand, but underneath the surface, Husk is as shallow as it is efficient.