Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|Children of the Corn|
Actors: David Anders, Kandyse McClure, Daniel Newman, Preston Bailey, Robert Gerdisch
Director: Donald P. Borchers
Genres: Horror, Mystery & Suspense
Uncut and Uncensored! — From Donald P. Borchers comes the resurrection of the most unholy shocker of all: It's 1975, and a young married couple - Vietnam vet Burt (David Anders of Alias and Heroes) and preacher's daughter V... more »
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Chad B. (abrnt1) from CABERY, IL
Reviewed on 12/26/2011...
While remaining closer to the Stephen King short story than the original version this film is very flawed. The largest overall problem was making it a period piece. Having it take place during the early 70s & adding Vietnam War subtext somewhat takes the viewer out of the film. The Vietnam elements were added to the story and do not exist in the original short story. The film does have some creepy moments, but none of the cast really stands out.
Some people have the mistaken idea that Stephen King had something to do with this film. King had zero involvement and only found out about it AFTER it was being made. People really have no clue how film rights work. A brief explanation in the hopes that ignorant people don't continue blaming the author of the short story for something he had nothing whatsoever to do with. When film rights are sold to a book sequel rights are sold also as a standard part of the deal. This explains why there's the following sequels to films based on King's novels/stories that have nothing to do with them: Carrie 2, Pet Semetary 2,Sometimes They Come back Again,Children of the Corn Part 3+ and numerous others.
King has mentioned that he considers Children of the Corn one of the worst films based on his stories. He's 100% correct. It was a low budget attempt to cash in on King's name and nothing else.
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Children of the Corn (2009).... It takes a lot of people to
Julian Kennedy | St Pete Florida | 11/27/2009
(1 out of 5 stars)
Children of the Corn (2009): 1 out of 10: Good lord did they screw this movie up. First, the writer (George Goldsmith) who adapted the original Children of the Corn is some sort of savant. Apparently all the good scenes in the original movie (The killing of the adults, Isaac and Malachi going at it in the climax, were his invention.) This movie cut all that good stuff out and replaced it with the Viet Cong and public child sex.
The blame rests squarely on Mr. Stephen Kings shoulders. He did not like the changes the 1984 and wanted to stick to his original story. Therefore, the movie takes place in the mid-seventies and the main couple is a divorcing, squabbling mess. In addition, the main character hallucinates Viet Cong shooting in the corn which looks ten times worse than it sounds. Oh they have a sex scene in a church The time for fertilization has come! where two teens have sex while nine year olds look on masturbating corn cobs.... good lord I didnt need to see that.
The casting is horrible. If I never see Kandyse McClure again (in the Linda Hamilton role) it will be to soon. She ruins the first half of an already horrible film. Daniel Newman as Malachi and Preston Bailey as Isaac ruin the second half. Daniel looks like he is reading off cue cards while Preston is about as threatening as a kitten.
Oh and if that all was not a big enough F You to the audience, the monster never shows up at the end.
It isnt like the original Children of the Corn was Casablanca or something but good lord this is an embarrassment for all involved."
It could of been better
Adam Lambert | swanton, vt United States | 09/27/2009
(3 out of 5 stars)
"I love the original children of the corn film but this one leaves you wanting more. The problem with this one they leave out all the best parts that made the original so good. Plus the actor that played Isaac did not fit at all. John Fraklin who played Isaac in the original made him creepy. But Preston Bailey makes Isaac out to be just a little annoying snot nose kid. The actor who played Maliki I thought was better but still not the best. Overall this film wasn't bad it just didn't add up to the original. They are suppose to release a unrated cut on October 6th maybe that will be better."
Yet another awful remake....
J. Givens | Iowa, USA | 10/10/2009
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I'll spare you some wasted time... seriously. Yeah, this movie is that bad. I'd rather be bludgeoned unconscious with dried ears of corn than watch this film again. (I live in Iowa, so this is an option!) I had a few unintentional laughs, especially during the child killing spree the main protagonist went on during his escape attempt. This film definitely has the highest body count of children killed in any horror film I've seen. Between that and the "sex scene" in the film, I'm still shivering. But anyway... I digress.
"Children of the Corn," in case you actually are living in a cornfield, is a remake of a prior film of the same name, both of which are based on a Steven King story. (I can still remember one of the creepy lines from the original film, although I haven't seen it in years: "He wants you too, Malachi. He wants you, too.") The plot is quite interesting for a horror film: it's set in a small Nebraska town and revolves around a religious cult composed of children that worship a being that lives in the corn fields. A husband and wife encounter the kids, and the events that follow make up the rest of the story. I'll not go into it in more detail, as other reviews have done it in already.
Unlike a lot of people, I don't mind so much that Hollywood is hell-bent on making endless remakes, but I wish they would at least make a better remake. This film is in no way better than its predecessor. The acting is atrocious - not that they were given very good dialogue. The lines were forced, and the actors are stiff and unbelievable. The special effects are laughable and, if you can believe it, worse than the 1984 film. So much for progress. I think that I read that the SyFy (formerly known as Sci-fi) channel backed the making of this film or something to that effect. I've gotten to the point where if I see Sci-fi channel on a DVD, I run.... I turn around and flee for my life. This movie should have been no different, but I only found this out post-viewing. If the idea of this film is interesting to you, by all means, go watch the original film. It's far superior. You've been warned! :)