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 »icki (Kandyse McClure of Battlestar Galactica) - are driving cross-country straight into the heartland of Hell. Here in Gatlin, Nebraska, the town's bloodthirsty children - led by the boy preacher Issac and his teen enforcer Malachai - have slaughtered all adults by command of He Who Walks Behind The Rows. Now two new Outlanders have arrived...and The Time of Sacrifice is at hand. Preston Bailet (Dexter) and Daniel Newman co-star in this brutal and chilling re-imagining of King's infamous take, featuring graphic footage not seen in the television broadcast.« less
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! :)
An actual product review of the DVD and not the TV broadcast
Gregory Holmes | 10/07/2009
(1 out of 5 stars)
"The DVD version has a nude sex scene with two of the "children" getting it on (on top of a church altar) in front of an audience of 5 to 18 year olds. How's that for classy? I don't remember anything like that in Stephen King's original short story but the makers of this film swear they are being faithful to the source material. In many ways they are but this film is so ineptly executed that it is an even bigger insult to Stephen King than the original (not so bad) film was.
The only bright spot in this rancid remake is Daniel Newman as Malachi. That guy can act and he gives Courtney Gaines a run for his money with his amazing and sympathetic portrayal of Malachi. Aside from Newman the rest of the acting is simply awful, particularly from the "children" who seem barely able to speak english. The kid playing Isaac isn't even elementary school play material. This kid is an absolutely rotten actor.
The script, while in theory is closer to the story, brings in all sorts of nonsense about Burt being a Viet Nam vet who is apparently experiencing post-traumatic stress in the corn field (and of course we get the obligatory flash back sequences). If you thought the original film was slow paced, try sitting through this snooze fest. Burt and Vicki yack and yack with a dead body in the trunk and then Burt wanders through the corn for a half hour experiencing flash backs that are just pointless and sleep inducing.
And guess what? The original film had BETTER visual effects in it than this one since this remake has ABSOLUTELY NO visual effects whatsoever. YOU WON'T SEE HE WHO WALKS BEHIND THE ROWS IN THIS FILM. Not even a glimpse. Not even a big fluffy glowing cloud formation. Not a gopher from hell in sight. NOTHING. THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER. What a complete waste. Yes the movie ends like the story with Burt and Vicki dead on crosses with their eyes gouged out but to see the actual end of the film you have to watch the credits all the way to the end and then the film picks up again with the children out in the corn field about to act out the finale of the film. Why on earth this was done is a complete mystery. Perhaps incompetent director Donald Borchers forgot to film any connecting scenes and decided to show the credits before inserting the final portion of the film. Who knows. It's all so amateurish, awful and absurd that you won't care and probably won't make it through more than a few minutes of this entirely terrible film.
Well...maybe not entirely terrible as the set design in the church is a little better than in the first film and the haunting theme music of Johnathan Elias is retained for this version. And of course there is the truly excellent performance by Daniel Newman as Malachi. Still, a great score and one good actor can't save this truly worthless, wretched mess."