Niños diabólicos

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 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.

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.

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.

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