Stephen Kings Kinder des Zorns

He cud have easily continued jogging on the main road n outrun the kids or cud have come across a passing car on the road.

I saw this 8th part for the first time recently which is also a remake of the original.

There is absolutely no atmosphere n scare factor is zilch which is very contrary to the original.

This one does have some violence which is a put off cos most of it is towards kids n it has a sex scene in front of a congregation comprising of kids. So double failure.

While the violence towards adults are offscreen.

The lead guy's life is in danger n he does blah blah and that too showing his back to a fella with a hammer.

The lead girl is attacked but rather trying to take a gun which is available n booing away the kids, she acts stupid.

Her boyfriend keeps on wasting time in reading mumbo jumbo stuff in an abandoned church rather than being with his girl.

This installment has a post credit scene but i doubt most will care or endure to reach that point.

Everybody only seems to talk bad about the female lead actor/actress and IMO she was not the only bad actor in this crap they call a film. All the actors in this....whatever--were just.plain.HORRIBLE. OMG the movie was so poorly acted, the kids looked neither creepy nor scary they looked more like some bad teenagers from some 80s movie about kids having a Rad summer or whatever. Goodness grief who wrote the script? Everything about this movie was just awful. I turned away 15 into the film. I watched this again thinking maybe i should give this movie a chance. What was i thinking? Ugh. I wish I could give this movie so many negative stars because that is exactly what this piece of blah deserves.

Being true to its source does not always make a better movie. If you compare the original to this then you can see why they changed it up and made a better movie to begin with. The remake ignores the original's way and sticks close to the original short story by Stephen King. The couple are bitter, the unhappy ending and no shot whatsoever of he who walks behind the row. The roles are miscast-ed left and right. The kid playing Isaac is the biggest blunder I have seen in years. He simply is not right for this part. Take away any kind of threat and you just have a bunch of overly religious kids who do not like adults and have a twisted religion. There are many things that backfire in this movie from the miscasting to the changes to keep in line with the original story and none of them work for the better. Stick with the original which is a all around a better movie.

A bickering couple (David Anders and Kandyse McClure) driving to California suffer more than marital woes after they accidentally run over a small boy. They discover the boy's throat had been cut and, putting the body in their trunk, head to the nearby town of Gatlin, Nebraska, only to discover it looks like it has been a ghost town for the last 12 years. Outside of a prologue and a few short added bits (exploding car!), this is an accurate scene-for-scene adaptation of Stephen King's short story (King co-wrote with director Donald P. Borchers, who produced the original). And therein lies the film's problem as the 27 page story in itself isn't enough meat for a 90 minute movie. To their credit, the writers does maintain the story's darker ending that the original abandoned. Another major problem is the acting, especially from McClure (BATTLESTAR GALACTICA), who looks a lot like Tyra Banks and possesses the same acting talent. Seriously, I haven't seen a performance this bad in a long, long time. She is woefully miscast and some of her delivery is hilarious (her performance after they hit the boy and she rails on her husband is cringe worthy). I actually prefer the original 1984 film because the villainous kids are actually menacing and dirty. Here, they look like they just stepped out of an Amish fashion catalog.

I was able to get to the end of this movie, but... only because I wanted to see how this version differed from the 1980s version, and to also see if this version was any truer to the original Stephen King story.

The two main characters were definitely more true to the original short story. Their bickering was pretty nasty, but the woman was overdone in her acidic nastiness, to the point of straining the boundaries of disbelief. Anyway, their acting was sincere and created a believable tension where the events that followed had their opening.

The movie was better in many ways than the 80s version, all except for one main glaring error. The casting of whoever played Isaac, the child leader/preacher. His line delivery was slush-mouthed and weak, words trailing off too quietly, with no believable passion. For the casting of a evangelical preacher, this particular child was an absolutely terrible choice. Every time he had any screen time or lines, I just kept saying "nope, no, nuh-uh, NOPE" in my head. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief and the obvious failure in the casting choice just kept bringing me out of the story.

The casting of Malachi was too much a mimicry of the 80s version.

Its difficult to cast children for TV movies, I assume, but at least get some kids who don't speak as though they've been novacained.

If you're a Stephen King fan, this might be worth exploring. If you were a fan of the original movie adaptation, well maybe then, too. Otherwise, there are much better choices.