Los niños del maíz 666: el retorno de Isaac

My friends and I continuously rent movies to watch as a group -- the worst, most horrible, cheesy hilarity we can find in Blockbuster, that is. We got hung up on the Children of the Corn series from the start. Corn and demonic children, what a FANTASTIC combination! We laughed through each and every Corn flick up til 666, which we rented last night. All those wonderful earlier films about He Who Walks Behind The Rows... and for that! How disappointing! :( It wasn't even that funny this time. Where were all the _children_?!?! My suggestion: don't even bother. I give this film a 3/10, just because they didn't have as many continuity mistakes and the gore was actually sort of gory.

"Children of the Corn" series has to be one of the worst and most repetitive series ever made.Really it just the same old boring crap again!Admittedly the original was pretty atmospheric and creepy,and next two parts were decent enough to watch them once,but the rest of this series sucks!Here we have the sixth installment which is so dull and boring that I was asking myself:why did I even bother watching such trash?Almost no gore,just a lot of stupid fake scares and truly bad acting.Definitely one to avoid!

This astounding sixth addition to the Children of the Corn had potential from the start. The antagonist from the 1984 original was returning and being played by the very same actor, it had so much potential to steer the franchise back on course.

Alas it wasn't meant to be. Sadly Isaac returns into a mess of a film with a terrible cliched concept, an outstandingly dull pace and a film that contributes nothing to the series at all.

Credit where credit is due it does have a great twist and the final scene is great, but then immediatly ruins it by having a poor finale to that.

Starring the excellent Stacy Keach Isaac's Return should have been great but poor writing killed it stone dead.

The Good:

Decent twist

The return of Isaac and same actor is great

The Bad:

Very boring

Disapointing ending

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Calling a sixth movie 666 is tacky when it has nothing to do with the source material

I thought "He who walks behind the rows would be taller

Killer kids led by a charismatic bible-versed midget (Isaac) claiming to be a prophet of "he who walks behind the rows"...thus the series began. Although the first "Corn" was not a great film, the premise alone kept it engaging. Amazingly enough, it has spawned 5 sequels. The latest involves a daughter of a former cult member of the original "Corn" returning to the corn-stalked town of Gaitlin with the hopes of tracking down her mother. What follows is an incoherent mess including the return of Isaac from a 19 year long coma, a "prophecy" foretelling a breed of new "killer kids" coming from our lead character Hannah and Isaac's firstborn son, and a case of mistaken identity resulting in the definitive answer of the question who is "he who walks behind the rows?". You will be disappointed with the answer. Fans of cheap scares, ultra-gore, shoddy but entertaining special effects and other B-movie characteristics will find this movie absent of all the above. Fans of serious cinema would not have rented this movie due to the title alone (try to tell your significant other that we are going to enjoy CHILDREN OF THE CORN 666: ISAAC'S RETURN tonight). Consequently, this dull movie has no audience. B-movie fans DYING to enjoy a COC sequel tonight should look up COC 3: Urban Harvest. Directed by Anthony Hixox and effects by Screaming Mad George, it is the liveliest entry in a series that should have died before it even began. I am no longer renting any more COCs unless John Woo wants to take a stab at horror.

Bringing back the original 'star' of a TV show or film series is usually a gimmick employed to get a series back on track, with varying degrees of success. Here it only goes to prove that not only is John Franklin a bad actor, but his writing skills are similarly questionable. It may be 'interesting' to see how he envisaged the series continuing, but it makes a less than interesting film. This is dull, confusing sepia-toned drivel, with neither plot or substance, and almost no children or corn! What's that all about?

Even number 5 is better than this...