IMDb RATING
3.8/10
6.7K
YOUR RATING
While traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.While traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.While traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.
Paul Butler
- Nahum
- (as Paul Butler Jr.)
Featured reviews
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe film takes place in 1963 and 1975.
- GoofsYou can't put holes in the gas tank by punching holes in the fenders.
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: The Ugly Truth/G-Force/Orphan (2009)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Stephen King's Children of the Corn
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 32m(92 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content