When I saw that there was a part 2 I thought good deal...the first one was pretty good so the second one probably will be OK as well. Man, was I wrong. This wasn't worth the powder it would take to blow this one to hell. LOLOLOLOL The first one was a little hoakey in places, this one was awful from start to finish. The first one had a couple of lower grade stars in it. This one put out the call at the failed actors school. Charles Durning and Murray what's his name was in the first one and there was nobody in this one. I gave this mess a 3 rafing...only because I felt bad for it. Hopefully you won't track me down and kick my butt for not rating it a zero. I seriously apologize.

It took over 40 years for a sequel to appear for DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW (1981), which tells the story of a mentally handicapped man who is unjustly killed while hiding inside a scarecrow, and whose spirit takes supernatural revenge on his murderers.

The original was very straightforward in telling the story, but handled everything in a solid manner: it had a decent plot, the acting and cinematography were executed well, and it was very atmospheric.

The central concept of the movie was that the possessed scarecrow did not actually kill anyone (at least not actively, shall we say), but served as a harbinger of death for those who saw it. They would subsequently fall victim to events which conspired to prove deadly, an idea that was earlier realized, for example, in THE OMEN (1975) and later most conspicuously in FINAL DESTINATION (2000).

I think this concept made the supernatural threat even more menacing because it was not "localized" in a scarecrow but could appear anywhere. It was an effective horror device.

The sequel was written by J. D. Feigelson, who also wrote the original, but inexplicably changes the central concept to turn the scarecrow into a killing entity, thereby rendering the movie not only essentially indistinguishable from a million other slasher movies, but also making it sillier. Ray Bradbury is listed as a story consultant, though he died almost 10 years before this film was made.

There is no atmosphere to speak of, the plot is not only contrived but confusing, and the acting holds no water to the original. The dialogue is also weaker. I actually noticed this only due to contrast when I heard the only decent piece of dialogue toward the end, when the main villain ambushes the protagonist, a lady who moved to the area with her young son.

All in all, this forgettable horror movie is an unworthy sequel to the original.

Granted, I have never even watched the 1981 "Dark Night of the Scarecrow" movie before, so I don't know what I was in for here, as I happened to sit down to watch the 2022 sequel "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2". I had the opportunity to watch it, and with it being a horror movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I opted to do so.

Now, I don't know how much of a continuation this 2022 sequel is to the 1981 movie. Nor do I know how much information I was missing out on from the first movie in order to be able to enjoy the 2022 movie "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2". But it hardly mattered, as I sat down to watch director J. D. Feigelson's movie with a clean slate and open mind, ready to be entertained and impressed.

But there was the staggering 3.4 rating on IMDb looming over the movie. At least it was 3.4 when I sat down to watch the movie. So I have to admit that there was a nagging voice at the back of my head telling me that the movie would most likely suck.

The script was adequate. I mean, it wasn't exactly top of the line horror writing, but it made for an okay enough viewing experience. It was, however, the type of script and storyline that didn't really require your undivided attention, and that meant it was easy to get distracted. But even leaving the movie for a while and returning, you haven't been missing out on any milestones in the narrative.

Needless to say that I wasn't familiar with a single actor or actress on the cast list. And that is actually something I do like when I watch movies. The acting performances in "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2" were okay. Nothing outstanding or memorable, except for some performances being more wooden and rigid than others, and a select few actually carrying the movie with their performances.

Visually, then you're not in for a treat. The special effects in "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2" weren't all that great. Luckily they weren't among the worst of special effects I've seen in a horror movie though.

"Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2" is not a movie that I would recommend for horror fans to rush out and get to watch. And after having sat through "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2", I can honestly say that I am not really setting out to track down the 1981 predecessor.

My rating of writers Ray Bradbury and J. D. Feigelson's 2022 movie "Dark Night of the Scarecrow 2" lands on a three out of ten stars.