Children of the Corn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.