3/4  Children of the Corn Quick Review
I loved all of the Children of the Corn movies! They're awesome.

3/4  Children of the Corn Quick Review
If you've only seen the highly inferior sequels, you don't know what you're missing. The first, and definitely best out of this series, the original Children will have that chilling effect on you. Watch it with the lights off and sound up.

3.5/4  Children of the Corn Quick Review
The first horror movie I had ever seen, but even today it is eerie as hell. The special effects really suck at the end, but the mood of the movie is creepy enough to make this a great horror.

5/5 Frightening
  by Tim Lasiuta (Red Deer, Alberta)
Imagine being able to go back, and re-shoot what is regarded as Classic film the way YOU wanted to the first time but were afraid to.. Imagine a story, from the King of Horror, filmed the way it should have been the first time?

If you can, then you have the NEW Children of the Corn, refilmed and rewritten by Donald P Borchers (based on the King short story). If you liked the original, then you will be shocked by this version. Firstly, this is horror/suspense the way it should be done. The horror/suspense is aided by the big question, what the hell is going on in Gatlin, Nebraska? Secondly, where are all of the people? Why does it seem that time has stood still?

Burt and Vicki, an unhappily married couple about to seek divorce, travel through Nebraska just because. A lonely stretch of road puts them corn country, and in the path of an escaping little boy. Striking him with his Thunderbird, they look for a place to report the crime, and discover the deserted town of Gatlin. The year is 1975 and Burt, a Viet Nam vet is still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. His wife, a preachers daughter, doesn't understand, and their marital tension builds just as the mystery before them escalated into a fight for their lives. The children, led by a pre-teen preacher, Isaac and Malachai (his brother), control a large group of children who have lived 12 years without adults. He who walks in the Corn, rules with fear, yet the fanatical, cult grip on the children in undeniable. As Borchers says in his special feature, one of the points he wanted to make that as mature individuals (and a society), we must not follow blindly, but rather be able to ask questions and seek wise guidance. The youth, in this film, were the adults in the first film. Placing youths in the main roles creates another moral focal point that is accentuated as those above the age of 18 are sacrificed horrifically (denying their `mature' influence upon the youth), to personify `And a child shall lead them'. That aside, as Vicki and Burt seek answers, the brutality of the children is obvious. Stuck in an old testament mind set, sacrifice is the only solution. Without it, there can be no absolution. The outlanders, as Isaac puts it, are to be sacrificed so the Children of the Corn can become pure once more as those above 18 are purged one more time.

This is one frightening film. The cinematography is outstanding. The stark, empty town conveys and magnifies the blood lust while providing an atmospheric setting for the pursuit of the outlanders. The cornfields serve to focus our attention on the conflict, and symbolize the conflict itself. Where have all the parents gone???? The adults not only fertilized the object of their cult, yet also created it with their own `sinful' behaviours. The `cross' has become a perverted corn decorated, symbol of evil and religious misunderstanding. Where grace should be, blood sacrifice (Old Testament), rules supreme and no-one is safe. The big question here is simple, how real is your faith? What is it based on?

Whatever you come away with, you will never think of corn the same way again.

There is violence. There is blood. There is religious symbolism. There is no redemption in Gatlin, Nebraska today.

Tim Lasiuta





1/5 Yet another awful remake....
  by J. Givens (Iowa, USA)
I'll spare you some wasted time... seriously. Yeah, this movie is that bad. I'd rather be bludgeoned unconscious with dried ears of corn than watch this film again. (I live in Iowa, so this is an option!) I had a few unintentional laughs, especially during the child killing spree the main protagonist went on during his escape attempt. This film definitely has the highest body count of children killed in any horror film I've seen. Between that and the "sex scene" in the film, I'm still shivering. But anyway... I digress.

"Children of the Corn," in case you actually are living in a cornfield, is a remake of a prior film of the same name, both of which are based on a Steven King story. (I can still remember one of the creepy lines from the original film, although I haven't seen it in years: "He wants you too, Malachi. He wants you, too.") The plot is quite interesting for a horror film: it's set in a small Nebraska town and revolves around a religious cult composed of children that worship a being that lives in the corn fields. A husband and wife encounter the kids, and the events that follow make up the rest of the story. I'll not go into it in more detail, as other reviews have done it in already.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't mind so much that Hollywood is hell-bent on making endless remakes, but I wish they would at least make a better remake. This film is in no way better than its predecessor. The acting is atrocious - not that they were given very good dialogue. The lines were forced, and the actors are stiff and unbelievable. The special effects are laughable and, if you can believe it, worse than the 1984 film. So much for progress. I think that I read that the SyFy (formerly known as Sci-fi) channel backed the making of this film or something to that effect. I've gotten to the point where if I see Sci-fi channel on a DVD, I run.... I turn around and flee for my life. This movie should have been no different, but I only found this out post-viewing. If the idea of this film is interesting to you, by all means, go watch the original film. It's far superior. You've been warned! :)



1/5 An actual product review of the DVD and not the TV broadcast (and WOW this movie sucks).
  by Gregory Holmes
The DVD version has a nude sex scene with two of the "children" getting it on (on top of a church altar) in front of an audience of 5 to 18 year olds. How's that for classy? I don't remember anything like that in Stephen King's original short story but the makers of this film swear they are being faithful to the source material. In many ways they are but this film is so ineptly executed that it is an even bigger insult to Stephen King than the original (not so bad) film was.

The only bright spot in this rancid remake is Daniel Newman as Malachi. That guy can act and he gives Courtney Gaines a run for his money with his amazing and sympathetic portrayal of Malachi. Aside from Newman the rest of the acting is simply awful, particularly from the "children" who seem barely able to speak english. The kid playing Isaac isn't even elementary school play material. This kid is an absolutely rotten actor.

The script, while in theory is closer to the story, brings in all sorts of nonsense about Burt being a Viet Nam vet who is apparently experiencing post-traumatic stress in the corn field (and of course we get the obligatory flash back sequences). If you thought the original film was slow paced, try sitting through this snooze fest. Burt and Vicki yack and yack with a dead body in the trunk and then Burt wanders through the corn for a half hour experiencing flash backs that are just pointless and sleep inducing.

And guess what? The original film had BETTER visual effects in it than this one since this remake has ABSOLUTELY NO visual effects whatsoever. YOU WON'T SEE HE WHO WALKS BEHIND THE ROWS IN THIS FILM. Not even a glimpse. Not even a big fluffy glowing cloud formation. Not a gopher from hell in sight. NOTHING. THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER.
What a complete waste. Yes the movie ends like the story with Burt and Vicki dead on crosses with their eyes gouged out but to see the actual end of the film you have to watch the credits all the way to the end and then the film picks up again with the children out in the corn field about to act out the finale of the film. Why on earth this was done is a complete mystery. Perhaps incompetent director Donald Borchers forgot to film any connecting scenes and decided to show the credits before inserting the final portion of the film. Who knows. It's all so amateurish, awful and absurd that you won't care and probably won't make it through more than a few minutes of this entirely terrible film.

Well...maybe not entirely terrible as the set design in the church is a little better than in the first film and the haunting theme music of Johnathan Elias is retained for this version. And of course there is the truly excellent performance by Daniel Newman as Malachi. Still, a great score and one good actor can't save this truly worthless, wretched mess.

2/5 A good remake? No it is not true
  by Sid the Elf (North Pole)
In 1984 Stephen King gave the world a reason to fear the children of Nebraska by writing Children of the Corn. Usually kids run around causing minor mischief pissing off a few parents here or there. However these kiddies are a bit different. Instead of the normal path, they form a murderous cult taking out every adult in sight. This is a concept that no doubt would reduce Santa to jif causing him to then swing his FTL's around over his head in a clear plastic bag. Since it has a good cult following the Sci-fi channel thought it must be a good idea to do a remake. Usually the remake idea never follows through well as was the case with Children of the Corn.

In this version we have a couple, with their marriage on the rocks, taking a little road trip. As they cruise through the cornfields of Nebraska they plow down a kid who runs across the road. Obviously not helping the marriage counseling process. Now they're freaking out and notice the kid's throat was slit and decided to get all Tommy Boy on him by throwing him in their trunk. As they come to the next town they soon find a pack of little punk kids of supernatural sorts and are forced into battle. After about a half hour into the film it really starts to go downhill. The main characters acting gets way to corny as he challenges the kids using his military experience. It's quite hilarious to watch this guy get chased down by some kids as young as 7, not all being male.

So in conclusion, the remake had nowhere near the effect the original had. There were some legit moments of enjoyment and even a couple laughs along the way. Unfortunately there wasn't enough to keep you interested. Even from a strictly B standpoint it couldn't work. Now we don't want to be too critical so have to give some credit being that it was a sci-fi channel picture that was a cut above most. Compared to their usual disasters like Grizzly Rage or Mega Snake this one ranks high on their list. As far as a recommendation we can only say feel free to check it out when it's on t.v, but please don't spend $20 some odd dollars. Do like Santa would do and save it for a lap dance.



2/5 Corn...y. (I can't believe no one's said it yet...)
  by Robert P. Beveridge (Cleveland, OH)
Children of the Corn (Donald P. Borchers, 2009)

Fritz Kiersch first adapted Stephen King's chilling story "Children of the Corn" for the big screen in 1984. It, and its many, many sequels, have become staples on the Syfy Channel (and its recent spinoff Chiller) in the intervening years. By now, the original is a certified cult hit, despite the fact that as a movie, it really kinda blows. (Okay, remove the "kinda"; the only big-screen King adaptation that's sillier is "Graveyard Shift", and that's at least so over-the-top stupid it deserves some recognition.) So when Don Borchers, who wrote the screenplay for the underrated Grace Jones vampire flick Vamp, and King himself set out to make a new adaptation, they didn't have to raise the bar too high to make it better. Aside from a few screens, they did an admirable job.

I don't know how it escaped me in all the years since I first read the short story (which happened, I think, in 1978) that "Children of the Corn" is a Vietnam War allegory. (You know, cornrows, thick foliage, jungle...) It makes sense, though, and Borchers and King bring that out a lot more in this adaptation. They also make a couple of other changes, some of which work, and some don't. In case you've never read the story (and by all means, you should do so at your earliest convenience), the plot: Vietnam vet Burt Stanton (Into the Blue 2's David Anders) and wife Vicki (Battlestar Galactica's Kandyse McClure) are on what's supposed to be a second honeymoon. Only it looks a lot more like it's going to wind up in divorce. Burt, sick of highway driving, got off the Interstate in Nebraska and decided to travel on back roads for a while. At one point during their bickering, a kid with his throat cut stumbles out onto the road, and Burt sees him too late. He decides he's going to drive to the nearest town and report the accident. Unfortunately, the nearest town is Gatlin, where, we learn in the opening scene (one of the big points against the movie; the best part of the story is finding all this out as we go along), a crazy kid had, twelve years earlier, incited the rest of the town's children to kill everyone over the age of nineteen, claiming God was speaking through him in the guise of something called He Who Walks Behind the Rows. (It's a bit more obvious in this movie, as well, who He Who Walks Behind the Rows really is... in case you didn't get the memo.) Since then, everyone is killed upon reaching their "Day of Favor" (nineteenth birthday), to keep up the sacrifices, keep the rain coming, etc., etc. Think of it as The Wicker Man, peewee-style. And needless to say, Burt and Vicki are over nineteen.

There are all sorts of interesting, somewhat perverse quirks in this flick. Sometimes when King goes back and revises his old stories for film, the result is just horrendous (look at the "new ending" for The Mist, for example), but most of what's here works just fine. The connotations of Vicki being black (the film, by the way, stays true to King's original mid-seventies setting--though I swear the story was set in 1978, while this version of the film is set in 1975) have been hotly debated on the IMDB message boards since the film originally aired, and I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said save that this is the kind of change I expect screenwriters to overplay, and it's not done here. Similarly, Burt's Vietnam War background is integrated nicely, especially in the flashback scenes, which feel less derivative than they do iconic (one in particular will strike you as very familiar, and it works here). The one change that doesn't work I can't tell you about, because it would spoil the film's biggest Big Reveal. But man, I can't believe they spent so much of their special effects budget on it. (You'll know it when you see it.)

On the other hand, what doesn't work in this movie, by and large, is the acting (or lack of same). Burt and Vicki are both played by capable actors (though McClure finds herself with a Judith O'Dea/Naomi Watts-style role, where most of the time she just has to scream), and Malachai, the town enforcer (Broken Bridges' Daniel Newman), has some acting chops. All the child actors, though, seem to have been chosen from headshots rather than acting ability. Most of those are small parts, so it's not a huge problem. Isaac the crazy preacher-kid is played by Dexter's Preston Bailey. You'd think someone who's been around for a couple of seasons of one of TV's highest-rated shows would have had some enunciation classes by now (and in many ways, Isaac is the film's actual main character). The other relatively large speaking role is that of Nahum, played by Paul Butler (of My Sister's Keeper); cute as a button, but not ready for speaking roles at this point in his career.

Still, acting problems and dumb special effects aside, this towers over the 1984 adaptation. Which doesn't make it a good movie by any means, but if you're sitting around with nothing to do on a Saturday night and you choice is between this and, say, Spring Break Shark Attack, you should definitely go for this one. ** ½