There are very few performers today who can keep me captivated throughout an entire film just by their presence. One of those few is Judy Davis, who has built a successful career out of creating characters that are headstrong in attitude but very vulnerable at heart. She takes roles that most other performers would treat melodramatically and adds a fiery, deeply emotional intensity that pulls attention away from everything else on the screen.
Her skills are well displayed in "High Tide," a film that matches her up a second time with director Gillian Armstrong, who gave Davis her first major success with "My Brilliant Career." In that film, Davis played a young woman who was determined to make it in the world, despite the suffocation she felt from her community and upbringing. In "High Tide," however, Davis' character, Lillie, is roughly the opposite: she gave up on any hope for her future when she was young, and, after giving birth to a child, runs from her responsibilities and takes up a life without direction or meaning. When she finally meets up with her daughter years later, the thought of taking care of her child is petrifying; she knows this is her chance to atone for her failures, but how can she be honest with her daughter and still gain her respect?
Gillian Armstrong's films usually relate stories about characters who desperately want to communicate with each other, but face obstacles set up by their own personal habits and addictions. "Oscar and Lucinda," for instance, was about a man and a woman who desperately needed each other's love but were always blindsided by their craving for chance, represented by their gambling addictions. Here, we are immersed in the world of a family torn apart by the mother's inability to commit to a settled life and her struggles to redeem herself despite being fully convinced that it's too late to change for the better. This is not simply a film with a great performance at its center, but also a rare achievement: a fully convincing story of redemption.

Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it.
Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like collegego figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.
Here's the breakdown:
The Good:
--Amazingly funny movieeven if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.
--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 binso it's only a little overpriced.
Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:
--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.
--Sounds like they put some effort into the musicbut it doesn't really fit the movieand isn't all that good.
The Bad:
--Terrible, terrible acting.
--Another slasher let-down with sexy womennone of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??
--Ridiculous story.
--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.
--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.
--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at randomyou never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.
The Ugly:
--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of well, all that other crap.
--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" seriesall of which are better than this atrocity.
--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious hereit's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hellbut I've never heard more asinine bantereven in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.
--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.
Memorable Scene:
--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."
Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funnyso bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10
Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10
Overall: 3/10
Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.
www.ResidentHazard.com