Kinder des Zorns

Maybe if those kids in Gatlin, Nebraska had gotten a visit from Professor Harold Hill and a boys band out of it, maybe they might not have killed all their parents. This Stephen King view of the mid-west sure makes one nostalgic for The Music Man.

It's one strange place that married couple Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton have come on their cross country journey. It reminded me of driving through Pennsylvania and the Amish country where you cannot get off the Pennsylvania Turnpike for ages, but on either side of the roads, nothing but woods and on the overpasses, Amish carts.

Here it's nothing but corn and when Peter Horton thinks he's hit a child on the road he goes for help and there's none. The town has been taken over by the devil himself working his evil through a young child preacher played by John Franklin. All the adults have been killed and the children are his disciples.

Of course some of the older ones are reaching puberty and the guy who was the high school bully Courtney Gains chafes under Franklin's leadership. He tries a palace coup d'etat, something along the lines of what old Lucifer himself did in heaven and everybody pays.

Children of the Corn is a good adaption of the Stephen King novel, it will please his legion of fans and maybe convert a few others.

This is the tale of a young couple (Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton) stranded in the deserted little town of Gatlin, Nebraska and stalked by a pack of adult killing children worshipping a demon living in the surrounding cornfields.

This very atmospheric piece is a rather humble b-movie that boasts an unusual and interesting premise (thanks to a pretty good short story by Stephen King) and delivers some decent performances from its cast (which is rare with children in general).

Although soft in its depiction of violence, the movie offers some creepy moments (especially in the still effective opening sequence). John Franklin, excellent as the child-preacher Isaac, makes for one odd and creepy looking kid and Courtney Gains inhabits his psychopathic Malachai character with obvious delight.

The cornfields are beautifully shot and the overall is boosted by a pretty efficient score by Jonathan Ellias. And to top this all up, R.G. Armstrong makes here an appearance (albeit a too short one) as a recluse gas station owner.

Don't be fooled though. The movie is far to be a masterpiece. At leading endlessly its main characters around cornfields and then through the deserted town (direct effect of superficially expanding a short story to feature film length), the movie ends up suffering from its slow pace ("Things just aren't happening fast enough" even says Horton at some point) with the characters taking what seems like an improbable amount of time to realise what is afoot.

The danger of young and impressionable minds blindly following extremist religious leaders is certainly an interesting theme but is here barely tapped into.

Finally the climatic sequence, with the manifestation of the collieflower looking "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", is a bit of a let down to say the least.

Those (not so minor) details however are not enough to warrant the bad press the movie gathered upon release (and Stephen King's severe criticisms). "Children of the Corn" is a well performed little soft core horror b-movie that surprisingly enough spawned a franchise and still provides eerie ambiance and creepiness that even, at times, make the few cheap scares work.

I first saw this in the late 80s on a vhs. Revisited it recently.

I found the film very atmospheric n surrealistic during the 80s.

The movie hasn't aged well, specially the lousy effects n lousy climax. Rather than showing the lousy entity, they shud have left it ambiguous.

One of the best part is that almost the entire film is shot in broad daylight, a thing getting rarer in today's horror films. Today's horror films r laden with shaky cam, flickering lights stuff.

One thing the series is noteworthy is for the new faces which later got much recognized.

This one is Linda Hamilton's second film.

The plot ain't original n never utilized properly. For more creepy n sinister kids, one shud check out Who Can Kill a Child?

Now lets start the marathon of the entire franchise.

I saw this film sitting on my Dad's lap when I was about seven years old. (I was a horror film fanatic from a very early age on.) We used to sit up watching late night scary movies while my Mom went to her ceramics classes.

Dad and I loved this movie. There is no sex or nudity in this film. Even though the images are pretty graphic, if your older children are mature enough to handle a little fright, this should be okay for them. Besides, since the children are the "bad guys", your kids should be pretty happy!!

My favorite actors in the film are the two star children (Joby and Sarah). They really make the film eerie with their innocence and sadness over losing their families. Malachi would be the scariest character. Even the way the other children in the movie gasp when they hear his name makes me shudder. I would not want to face him either!! Another aspect that makes this film so scary is the music. The director adds clips at just the right moments but doesn't forget to leave ample silence. There is nothing greater to add to the suspense than a good dose of silent screen. Then all your senses get a jolt at once when the big horror scene comes alive.

The most suspenseful scene is when the boy stumbles out onto the highway clutching his sliced throat. It's a real hair raiser!! But, without revealing too much, I guess I will close by saying that this is by far one of the best horror films I have ever seen. A little strange, but, then again, this IS a Stephen King film. Need I say more??

1984 was an amazing year for movies, being the nerd that I am I pay attention to my analytics and 1984 is the 3rd greatest movie year at time of writing.

Being a huge horror fan the fact I haven't watched the Children Of The Corn movies is remarkable especially when you take into consideration how much I love Kings work and how I've seen every other adaptation of his books.

Off the top of my head I've seen the remake (2009) and one of the later sequels and have to say (And I never say this) the remake is better.

Being that this is the original cult classic I expected so much more but instead found a disjointed lifeless effort that failed to impress.

I'm not saying it's bad, but its mediocre at best. If the cult classic original is of this quality I'm concerned what the long list of straight to vhs/dvd sequels are going to be like. Time will tell!

One of the weaker Stephen King adaptations.

The Good:

Still has the Stephen King vibe

Concept is strong enough

The Bad:

Far too short

Wastes a good story

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Linda Hamilton cannot sing

For a religious man Stephen King really craps on religion

The only thing more obnoxious than a religious person is a religious child

Kids are evil, been saying it for years