Opiniones de usuarios

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.

Absolutely unnecessary remake of the 1983 original, this time for the small screen. A couple wanders into the wrong farm town, where no adults are to be found. There seems to be an awful lot of somber-looking kids hanging around, however. I think most of you know where the plot goes from there. The acting is so-so, the scripting also just so-so. The so-called leader of the children looks oddly like a cartoon character, with a really big hat and spindly legs and squeaky voice. He reminded me of a cross between Mickey Mouse and a mushroom. As such, he is good for a laugh. The film has no scares, but it does have some decent violence as the story progresses. There have been something like six CHILDREN OF THE CORN flicks prior to this, most of them not worth watching. Heck, even the original was nothing to write home about. So I am not sure why anyone thought a TV remake was needed. It wasn't.

Of all the Stephen King books and films, I find the movie Children of the Corn to be about the most interesting. As a fan of horror movies, I think films with children as villains seem to work for me. Poltergeist and Insidious are two quality horror movies that involve children and families. Village of the Damned was another and this spawned others. Children of the Corn is one of the most interesting of these films because of it's originality, atmosphere and it involved many kids, not just one. This series had some sequels with the first one coming out in 1984 with mixed reviews. The most recent in the series was a remake on the Syfy Channel in 2009 eight years after the last one.

This remake uses most of all all the same ideas of the original including corn fields in Nebraska and kids with religious views who have killed their parents and looking to strike again. This time the victims are an argumentative couple who were on their way to a honeymoon trip in California.

As a creepy kid film, it is very important that there are good performances from the child actors. Here, I was disappointed in the child characters. Other than the Isaac character (Preston Bailey) just about every kid plays their part like extras. At the same time, these characters are not creepy and don't work well as villains.

Even though you could pick at it a little and get maybe something, there isn't much of a plot here. I do like the leads of David Anders and Kandyse McClure but they aren't given much to do and they really mope around a lot. There are some interesting sets here but the kill scenes are not particularly good. There are some beneath the surface ideas that do come into play here. and these include the idea of race, spiritual aspects of the corn and religious overtones throughout.

Of course you can't take any of this story too seriously, but obviously there is no way something like this could happen in our country with our government. A town full of killer kids and young pregnant girls would be responded to quickly by the police and military and would be a CNN headliner for weeks. A minor flaw maybe but still hard to overlook.

I found Children of the Corn to be disappointing and a movie with an hour and half plot that ran too long at two hours. This is a TV film that feels like a tornado stringing things and ideas around with no purpose and really just wasting our time.

This movie is very special. So special actually, I created an account just to review it and hopefully save at least one poor soul from wasting an hour and a half of their lives that they can never...EVER...get back. The movie consists of a married couple who fight and bicker so much that you actually hope they will die. The acting is horrid, so on top of hearing two people fight non-stop, its not even believable. I read that casting was only two weeks prior to production...and it shows. The children aren't scary, creepy, or anything really. They're just kind of silly. The storyline lacks any depth at all, and you find yourself praying for "the good part" but it never comes. I wasn't expecting much from a made for TV SyFy movie, but this movie didn't even live up to my very low expectations. Plain & simple, don't waste your time.

This has to one the worst made for TV movie I've seen, never mind it was a remake of a Stephen King Classic. The lead actress really overacted her part, but I really can't blame her with the script she took her lines from. The children aren't even in the least bit scary and the little boy who played Issac recites his lines like he's still trying to remember them. There is absolutely no atmosphere, eeriness or creepiness which the original movie had an abundance of. This version is stale and falls flat on its face. The male lead is the only one who is even slightly believable. Who wrote the script? I had to keep asking myself did they write this for adults.

Oh, why SYFY do you keep persisting in torturing us with cheap and stupid movies? I'd give this movie a -10 if I could.

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.

For a Syfy Original, I actually have to rate this rather highly. In my life have have seen some terrible terrible films (Bloodrayne anyone?), and this I most certainly would not count among them. Based on a short story by Steven king, and closer to the original story, this film focuses on an a husband and wife who have a rather... estranged relationship, who are moving to a new place in an attempt to sort out their marital issues. Along the way they get into an argument while the husband is driving, and accidentally hit a boy who stumbles out into the road, holding his throat, leading them into a situation where something is most certainly rotten in the state of Denmark, and by the time they begin to realize what is going on around them, it may already be too late. Now this is not a perfect film by any means, so don't watch it expecting emmys, there are moments when the dialogue could indeed have been done better, but it is not so low as to make it unwatchable, and the bickering between the husband and wife does seem a bit much at times, though its nothing that doesn't actually happen in the real world. But the acting quality was surprising, especially on behalf of the children, I was impressed. All in all, I would recommend watching it at least ONCE. This is one of those movies that either you like, or you don't, but I can guarantee you its not the "worst movie EVER made, as some of you will read other stating, (there's always at least one), so please ignore the naysayers and take a look for yourself. Overall, I was pleased, though I felt a little let down at points, and really pleased at others. I give it an 8 out of ten In part for the camera work, effectiveness of shots and music, and for not actually being the usual Syfy letdown, it is a little higher than I would normally rate it, but the movie needs a boost.

OK, let's be honest. This is not a film that is going to win lots of awards. It's relatively low budget, acting could be better, flimsy story line etc etc. But what do you expect? ALL Stephen King adaptations tend to fall short of their expectations. I'm not ashamed to say I like this film. My whole gripe with the original COTC was it didn't stick to the original short story at all, it had a happy ending and the acting sucked. This film at least overcomes the first two! I did actually think the actor who played Burt did him very well; and the kids were genuinely creepy. Everything felt real to me, like this could actually happen which is one thing I look for in good horror films. Is it better than the original film? A million times yes. If you want an answer to "should I watch this?" the answer is also yes. It's entertaining, very close to the short story, good atmosphere and is overall a nice creepy film. It's by no means amazing, but I'm judging it compared to the original, and it does feel like a completely different film. So give it a chance. You'll definitely look at gingers differently after watching it! :P

Anyone who would suggest this version of Children of The Corn is in any way superior to the original 1984 adaptation is completely out of their freakin' mind!!

This is 'MOVIES' we're talking about here...not a 'MOST FAITHFUL STEPHEN KING ADAPTATIONS COMPETITION'. Films have to be entertaining and dramatic. Like Kubrick's Shining, the choices made in the earlier adaptation were obviously smart and effective (not designed to please the author, but to please AUDIENCES)...but here..oh dear

The script, acting and execution of this Children of the Corn 2010 version is probably one of the most embarrassing train wrecks, even for modest budget horror I've had the displeasure of sitting through in many years.

Kandyse McClure's performance is particularly noteworthy as embarrassingly hysterical and silly. Watching two actors work you can always tell when someones out of their depth watching their eyes as the other actor delivers lines. When she's not shrieking every line, there's nobody home at all. David Anders does a pretty OK job and he's obviously in another league to Ms McClure..but he has some genuinely awful script to wade through also.

The eponymous 'children' are all limp and ineffective showroom dummies who seem to be rehearsing their lines...not even the vaguest hint of sinister! They don't even make believable religious fanatical drones! You know a horror film is failing dismally when you don't even get a hint of satisfaction when the irritating lead characters get their well deserved end! Avoid this like the plague...its not BAD FUNNY, its just really BAD.

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.

I remember the Children Of The Corn movie from 1984, and as an big admirer of Stephen Kings work, I was somehow pleased even in not so great movie, of the overall impression watching it. I did not read the book, but it was another OK movie that lay in my movie collection. While we had there fine acting from actors, good atmosphere and rhythm, and the most important thing scary feeling of children there, in this crap which is a true shame to be called adaptation of Stephen King work we have nothing but low level entertainment. Not scary at all, terrible acting, everything so amateurish that hurts my stomach.

Some effects that was used to create scary atmosphere failed, using part of the music from first movie to create tension of it, nothing helped here.

I really don't know how it is possible to show that kind of junk to audience that admire good horror movie, especially for those that also like master King.

It is a shame. The 0 is even too much for this, so called movie. I have no motivation to describe more of it, just to express total disappointment.

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.

Just watch the original of this film. Trust me. Awful in every sense. The "preacher boy" was like a kid reading a script in a rubbish school play. The rest of the acting was truly terrible. Leading lady was irritating from start to finish.

The second (small) screen version of Stephen Kings' short story stars David Anders and Kandyse McClure as the couple Burt and Vicky Stanton. Burt & Vicky, whose relationship has turned utterly venomous, are travelling cross country. On their way through Nebraska, they run down a child in the road - only for Burt to realize that the kid was basically dead before they hit him; his throat was slashed. Making it to the nearby tiny town of Gatlin, they are soon confronting the towns' children, who have turned murderous and now pray to a different sort of God named "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".

This version is scripted by King himself and director Donald P. Borchers, who'd produced the 1984 feature film. Unlike the original, "Children of the Corn" '09 is scrupulously faithful to the story. (Not that being faithful is always necessarily a good thing.) Burt and Vicky are NOT getting along to begin with, so their current situation only makes things worse. Problem with this is that you'll probably find it hard to care about this idiot couple. He comes off slightly better, but only because he's more low key and isn't nearly as insufferable as she is. He's still a stubborn dummy, of course, and their inability to get the Hell out of Dodge before the excrement hits the fan merely serves to seal their fate.

One new wrinkle this time is to make Burt & Vicky an inter-racial couple, not that it actually adds anything to the story. That element is just sort of there. The King / Borchers teleplay also goes awfully heavy on the 'Nam parallels, making Burt a veteran who ends up flashing back to his time in the service. There's also some good old fashioned sex to spice things up a little.

The original film may have been laughable, and ultimately cheesy, but at least it had more personality, and was more entertaining, than this. It's not good when you can't bring yourself to root for the protagonists. Anders and McClure do whatever they're capable of with these roles, but they're easily outshone by Daniel Newman, as Malachai, and Preston Bailey, as the intense boy preacher Issac. Still, these two kids aren't going to stick in your memory the way that Courtney Gains and John Franklin do.

One worthy component is the music by Jonathan Elias (who scored the '84 film) and Nathaniel Morgan. Robert Kurtzman supplies the decent enough gore.

This viewer didn't hate this adaptation nearly as much as some people, but will concede that the '84 film shows people a generally better time, despite its utterly goofy, upbeat ending.

If you stick it out to the bitter end, there IS a final scene following the end credits.

Six out of 10.

Absolutely horrendous, the couple are completely unlikable, you actual want them to get murdered, and the acting is almost laughable, stick to the original.

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.