Children of the Corn

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.

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 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.

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.