Opiniones de usuarios

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.

Maybe not so scary, but pretty cool horror movie after the short story written by Stephen King.

The children of Gatlin, under the influence of 'priest' Isaac, kill all their parents as it is the wish of the Lord who apparently lives in the corn. 3 years later a couple (Peter Horton and Linda -Terminator- Hamilton) are stranded in that same place. The kids, led by Isaac and his first man Malachai, set up a plan to sacrifice them to their God.

The movie gets a great start with the children killing their parents, after that it isn't much horror but more of a suspence movie. You got to see this only for the Malachai kid. Great casting!

6/10.

Children of the corn is a 1984 film based on the short story by Stephen King. The story is that a couple who go to Gatlin, Nebraska find themselves in a living nightmare as they are hunted by a cult of children who have been taught by their "preacher" Isaac that everybody over the age of 18 must be killed.

This film starred: Peter Horton, Linda Hamilton & John Franklin

In my opinion this is an entertaining film and doesn't deserve all the stick it gets, it isn't great by any means however it's a good film too watch when your bored also a good film to watch with your friends on a night in. I do recommend this film if you have read the short story or if you are a Stephen King fan also to all you 80's cult fans.

***/***** Good film.

Children of the Corn is a classic example of a movie that was much more frightening when I was a kid. Now I suppose it pales in comparison to the better horror flicks I've seen. It's still not a bad genre flick and I recommend seeing it. Children of the Corn has its moments. Isaac and Malachai are still creepy looking cats (both played effectively by John Franklin and Courtney Gains). The musical score with the children chanting is an eerie effect too. The café scene and the accidental hit and run are the standouts of the movie, it's pretty grisly stuff. The rest is a bit mediocre. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton are pretty good as the young couple trying to escape the murderous children. And an appearance by R.G. Armstrong is never a bad thing. The movie is a "loose" adaption of a Stephen King short story, but the sequels are just absolutely King rapes. So do not bother with those.

I saw this movie recently and I was unimpressed. I have seen many adaptations of Stephen King's short stories, and this film is not among the best. However, it also didn't seem as bad as many people say. It has some redeeming qualities that must be taken into account. Perhaps it contributed to becoming a film with some notoriety, even after several disastrous sequels.

The film is based on a short story by King about a small rural town, where everything revolves around growing corn. One day, in 1980, inspired by the fiery preaching of a teenager recently arrived in the city called Isaac, the local children unite and massacre the adults, their parents and family members, in order to please an evil and diabolical deity they call "The One Who Walks Behind the Rows". And from there, the city dies, and so do those who get there. It was what would happen to a young couple who gets lost and finds the city by chance, but they will have the help of two children from the city, unhappy with the direction of the situation.

Well, I don't know if it's really worth saying that logic isn't the film's strong point. It does not make sense for a city, however small, to suffer such a calamity and that is not front-page news, with an invasion of police, armed to the teeth, to hunt down the sect. It is best to accept the film as it is and not think too much about the story or everything will fall apart. One of the things that pleased me most is the way the film begins: through the voice of one of the children, we witnessed the horror of the massacre, with the refinement of cruelty. It is one of the most striking scenes in the film, and it introduces very well what will follow. The film is effective in the task of creating an atmosphere of tension and surrounding suspense, but it spoils it as it progresses and the film becomes more exaggerated. The ending is histrionic and uninteresting.

The film has a cast that we can divide into adults and children. The overall performance is average, but there is no actor who truly shines or stands out for his good work. This is largely due to the poor direction of Fritz Kiersch and the fact that the characters are basic, without any development. Most children did not have much to do. John Franklin is greasy and slippery, but never truly threatening, Courtney Gains is more effective at this task; Robby Kiger and Anne Marie McEvoy are sweet, pleasant and easy to like; Jonas Marlowe and Julie Maddalena do nothing more than is essential. When it comes to adults, Linda Hamilton steals the spotlight whenever she appears and the reason is clear: she is beautiful and convincing in the role of the lady in danger, but she does nothing but be in danger, appear scared and run away. R. G. Armstrong did a good job on a character that comes up briefly, and it gives us perhaps the closest thing to a well-done dramatic interpretation. Peter Horton has not convinced me and has scenes that are absolutely inconceivable.

Technically it is a rather poor film, and it should certainly not be the fault of the time it was made. There were already better features and special effects than those used here. Really, the film has horrible special effects, the best and most creative being that pile of earth that runs from side to side and, supposedly, is the evil creature that lives in the corn and the children deified. There is little blood in the film (in certain scenes there should be more to make it more credible) and the deaths are not graphic, but they shock more by what is implied than by what is actually seen.

Stephen King is often cited to be the father of modern horror, and this view isn't wholly unfounded. King's stories have had a large impact upon the horror genre, and many of them are very good stories in their own right also. However, when it comes to translating King's words onto the screen; many filmmakers have proved that they are not up to the task. I haven't read the book, 'Children of the Corn', but I'm sure it's better than this movie. While the film isn't especially bad; it's hardly a tour de-force of horror cinema either, and like many Stephen King films; this one could have been a hell of a lot better. Actually, this story isn't one of King's better efforts; it follows a small town whose children murder their parents on the instructions of a mysterious preacher; a little kid calling himself Isaac. The story picks up three years after this terrible event when a young couple drive into town for some reason. They find the village completely devoid of adults and it isn't long until they discover what's happened and seek to put an end to it!

This film has missed several opportunities, the most glaring of which is the subterranean manifestation that dwells beneath the soil in the cornfields. We get several glimpses of this creature, but we never get to see it properly; and because of this, the monster is about as threatening as a bunch of little kids. Oh wait. Anyway, the film draws parallels with other evil kids films such as Village of the Damned in the way it plays out, but it never really gets out of first gear. While the atmosphere of the town is foreboding and well done on the whole, the plotting isn't very exciting and there's very few moments of real tension or suspense, which ensures the film isn't as engaging as it could have been. The cornfields and the corn that inhabits said field's makes for an unlikely horror prop, and some scenes within the fields are genuinely creepy. The kids themselves are rather well done also, with both of the main ones having good screen presence. If you were to pigeonhole King's films into 'good' and 'bad', this one would firmly be in the latter side. On it's own, however, it's not all that bad, and if you're a fan of King's work, you'll no doubt find something to like here. Or you might hate it for not living up to the book, one of the two.

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

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 remember being terrified as a kid, and then the idea of this movie being a "great horror movie" stuck with me... until now. On my rewatch, I realized that I don't really care for this movie too much. Is this really a classic?

I first watched Children of the Corn when it came out on video in the eighties, when I was roughly the same age of the child stars that were in it. I loved it. Now I've gone and watched it again as an adult - and with children of my own - it's a completely different experience! It's about a small American town in Nebraska where the children kill all the adults and start sacrificing each other to a mysterious god (did I mention it was based on a Stephen King book?). I used to love seeing the children attacking the adults (and no, I wasn't a hooligan, by the way). Now, I just wanted to send every last one of them up to bed and take away their portable DVD players (works every time with my daughter).

It's certainly not the best adaptation of a Stephen King book, but it's certainly not the worst either. I guess there's a good half the film spent following the young couple of accidentally stumble across the deserted town, as they wander round trying to work out what we - the viewers - already know.

However, what does make it pretty freaky is the lead (evil) children themselves. In recent Hollywood films, children have often been portrayed as the bad guys for added nastiness. Although, for example, just my making a kid's eyes glow red or have them dressed in ghostly clothes, doesn't necessarily make them scary. These kids are the real deal (and continue to freak the hell out of me without any false claws of glowing eyes whatsoever). All they needed was to be ugly enough! One has an extremely bad haircut (even for the eighties) and speaks like South Park's Eric Cartman. The other is like a young, ginger Mick Jagger. Even I would have my doubts about denying these two television privileges! Children of the Corn has sort of stood up to the test of time. If nothing else it's interesting to see Linda Hamilton in a completely different role to her most known part as Terminator's cyborg-killing Sarah Conner. I found the second half of the film more engaging than the first. My advice: if you haven't seen this before and are watching it again for the nostalgia factor, know what you're getting. It's a bit cheesy in places, but still pretty good fun for a film that takes itself very seriously.

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??

I enjoy most classic horror movies, but this one is one of the worst that I've seen. I almost fell asleep several times while watching Children of the Corn. The only thing "scary" about this film is the awful effects they added. The children are just annoying and nothing more. I didn't care who died because none of the characters had much of a personality. I expected more out of such a popular movie.

The biggest mistake in this movie is that we know why these characters do whatever they do. The children kill adults because Isaac says so. Isaac says so because the demon-thing "He who walks behind the rows" tells him to. The demon tells to because... it's a demon, enough said. Fear is born when we don't know or understand something that's strange to us. That's why so many people think Birds (1963) and The Shining (1980) are very creepy movies. We don't know why the birds attack or why Jack goes crazy, but that is exactly the reason why those movies are so popular. Another flaw in this movie is how it seems so made up-scary. The texts "spill the blood" and "and a child shall lead them" written with _unknown red fluid_ felt a bit unnecessary, just like the dried corn stalks that were everywhere.

It feels like this movie tried to make Vicky and Burt some kind of immortal heroes. In Stephen King's original short story, they end up dying, but here they don't. They just kill off the three bad guys we had and then the movie's just over. And so we get to the next thing I disliked really much in this movie. The ending. In the novel, we know that the children continue sacrificing each other and themselves to He who walks behind the rows, but in this film Burt, as our strong neverdying superhero, comes to preach how every religion with violence as the main point is wrong. Though I agree with that point, as for horror movies, I prefer the ones where the heroes don't survive. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but I think we all can agree on that the ending was super unimpressive. It just leaves the story unfinished. It's almost like they didn't even try. No talking, no music. Just "The End" and nothing else. It raises so many questions that we'll never get answers to.

I think the plot would've been much better if "He who walks behind the rows" was made-up and not an actual being. I've always been more scared by people with just homicidal minds, but never monsters. I'd like the plot better if there never was any bigger force, just Isaac. Or there could've been an adult behind all this because, after all, a 12 year old making up a religion that actually has affect on people would be kinda unrealistic now that I think of it. But the main point is that the children are not the villains if their lives were in danger if they didn't kill. There's a major plot hole there, because the movie tries to make these kids look scary but if you think it; they just did it to save their own lives from the massive demon thing behind the rows.

Even though this film is full of plot holes, there are still things in this movie that I like. First of all; the town of Gatlin. The scenery is just so beautiful, both at the cornfields and in the city. I could almost smell the fresh corn. And secondary; the actors. Though the actors of our two protagonist kids were kinda stiff, I still enjoyed every child actor in this movie (or maybe actors playing children, because many of them weren't actual children). The kids actually seemed to believe what they were told and the expressions on their faces look really legitimate. Isaac's actor was probably the best thing in this movie. Though he was like twenty-something whilst making the movie, he actually came across as a child to me. His acting was also really good, and the way Isaac spoke was just - of course I have never met a child cult leader talking about sacrificing adults - like I'd imagine a character like him would talk. It's hard to explain, but in few words, he is just one of my favorite actors of all Stephen King adaptions.

Children of the Corn is not the best Stephen King movie - not even close being it, but it just has that something that has been sticking with me since I watched the film for the first time. I recommend watching it, though it doesn't bring anything new to its categories. Now there's only one question. How did this piece of mediocrity get 8 sequels?

The murder rate is as high as an elephant's eye in this flaccid adaptation of Stephen King's short story. While driving through Nebraska en route to a new job, medico Burt (Peter Horton) and his wife Vicky (a PR-Terminator Linda Hamilton) nearly run over a mutilated boy who staggers from the cornfields. Seeking help, they enter the town of Gatlin, whose under-20 residents have butchered their parents per the decree of junior-grade holy roller Isaac (John Franklin), who preaches the word of a being called "He Who Walks Behind the Rows." King's original story (from his 1978 collection Night Shift) was a lean and brutal melange of Southern-Gothic atmosphere and E.C. Comics-style gore, which script Greg Goldsmith effectively neutralizes by adding a youthful narrator (a grating Robbie Kiger) and putting an upbeat spin on the story's morbid conclusion. Fritz Kiersch's direction is TV-movie flat, with the sole inspired moment (hideous religious iconography glimpsed during a bloody "service") delivered as a throwaway. Aside from Horton and Courtney Gains (as Isaac's hatchet man Malachai), the performances are dreadful, and the depiction of the Lovecraftian monster-god as a sort of giant gopher inspires more laughter than terror. Amazingly, the film spawned six sequels; Franklin (Cousin Itt in the Addams Family films) later appeared in and wrote 1999's Children of the Corn 666.

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.

Once fall begins to rear its head, I always have to make time to pop this flick in. It has been a yearly viewing of mine for well over a decade at this point. Pretty damn different from the short story, but still thoroughly enjoyable with a great atmosphere.

Can you guess what I'm going to say? The adaptations of Stephen King's works tend to place themselves among the worst, most laughable horror movies ever made, unless a great director is at work (John Carpenter and Stanley Kubrick being good examples). "Children of the Corn" is probably the worst of all those adaptations. It takes King's magnificent short story and stretches it impossibly, to end as a long idiotic bore, with actors either wooden or hammy, moronic script, preposterous plot, lame effects and brainless directing. The only good thing about it is the truly atmospheric score. Too bad so good a soundtrack was wasted on this trash.