• bigbenjr481 January 2005
    9/10
    Sarah Connor - Vs - Satan
    Warning: Spoilers
    Certainly one of the better adaptations of a Stephen King tale, Children Of The Corn, for me, was a goosebump film. But all the more chilling was an unseen, Evil Force who a group of murderous children happily calls "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" (Rows, meaning rows of corn in a corn-field) The image you get of this "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" character is simply Satan with a new nick-name. And why old Lucifer has chosen to possess a billion ears of corn in Nebraska {instead of the John Deere tractor sitting alongside of it} is beyond me. Whatever the reason, the fact that he's somewhere within that cornfield gave me the chills throughout this film. More chills than watching these children go on a killing rampage throughout the small town. Anyone over the age of 17 was quickly laid to rest at the beginning of the film, and any kid about to turn 18 happily sacrificed themselves to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows".

    The film stars Peter Horton and Linda (Terminator 1 and 2's) Hamilton. By accident, they enter this small town and become the towns only two grown-ups. Once spotted, they are quickly labeled "Outlanders" and are pursued throughout the remainder of the film until they are finally caught, bound and prepared for sacrifice.

    I love this film. Its had a special place in my heart for years. There is not a boring moment in this film that would put you to sleep. There are many jolts, winces and frights. And even though the "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" fella never shows his face, you will definitely feel it's presence. Trust me. Just knowing that he's somewhere in the midst of that cornfield will be enough to creep you out.

    I give this gem a 9/10
  • Backlash0079 November 2001
    "Outlander!"
    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.
  • HumanoidOfFlesh29 December 2001
    9/10
    Pretty atmospheric.
    After reading some negative comments on this film it seems to me that many of those reviewers hate horror movies.If you don't like horror,then leave this genre alone!!!Go back and watch some Hollywood big-budget trash!!"Children of the Corn" is an enjoyable horror film with a few creepy scenes and some good shocks.The acting is decent enough,and the atmosphere of an isolated town(Gatlin)is well-captured.I've seen the first four parts of this series and they are not really bad(want some crap-check out "Witchcraft" series)Enough said-try this one if you enjoy watching horror movies.Very atmospheric score too!
  • cedde620 September 2007
    5/10
    And a child shall lead them...
    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.
  • The_Void9 June 2005
    6/10
    Another so-so film based on one of Stephen King's books
    Stephen King is often cited to be the father of modern horror, and this view isn't wholly unfounded. King's stories have had a large impact upon the horror genre, and many of them are very good stories in their own right also. However, when it comes to translating King's words onto the screen; many filmmakers have proved that they are not up to the task. I haven't read the book, 'Children of the Corn', but I'm sure it's better than this movie. While the film isn't especially bad; it's hardly a tour de-force of horror cinema either, and like many Stephen King films; this one could have been a hell of a lot better. Actually, this story isn't one of King's better efforts; it follows a small town whose children murder their parents on the instructions of a mysterious preacher; a little kid calling himself Isaac. The story picks up three years after this terrible event when a young couple drive into town for some reason. They find the village completely devoid of adults and it isn't long until they discover what's happened and seek to put an end to it!

    This film has missed several opportunities, the most glaring of which is the subterranean manifestation that dwells beneath the soil in the cornfields. We get several glimpses of this creature, but we never get to see it properly; and because of this, the monster is about as threatening as a bunch of little kids. Oh wait. Anyway, the film draws parallels with other evil kids films such as Village of the Damned in the way it plays out, but it never really gets out of first gear. While the atmosphere of the town is foreboding and well done on the whole, the plotting isn't very exciting and there's very few moments of real tension or suspense, which ensures the film isn't as engaging as it could have been. The cornfields and the corn that inhabits said field's makes for an unlikely horror prop, and some scenes within the fields are genuinely creepy. The kids themselves are rather well done also, with both of the main ones having good screen presence. If you were to pigeonhole King's films into 'good' and 'bad', this one would firmly be in the latter side. On it's own, however, it's not all that bad, and if you're a fan of King's work, you'll no doubt find something to like here. Or you might hate it for not living up to the book, one of the two.
  • Kimta12 March 1999
    Spooky, thought-evoking revelation into the dark world of the occult.
    I saw this film sitting on my Dad's lap when I was about seven years old. (I was a horror film fanatic from a very early age on.) We used to sit up watching late night scary movies while my Mom went to her ceramics classes.

    Dad and I loved this movie. There is no sex or nudity in this film. Even though the images are pretty graphic, if your older children are mature enough to handle a little fright, this should be okay for them. Besides, since the children are the "bad guys", your kids should be pretty happy!!

    My favorite actors in the film are the two star children (Joby and Sarah). They really make the film eerie with their innocence and sadness over losing their families. Malachi would be the scariest character. Even the way the other children in the movie gasp when they hear his name makes me shudder. I would not want to face him either!! Another aspect that makes this film so scary is the music. The director adds clips at just the right moments but doesn't forget to leave ample silence. There is nothing greater to add to the suspense than a good dose of silent screen. Then all your senses get a jolt at once when the big horror scene comes alive.

    The most suspenseful scene is when the boy stumbles out onto the highway clutching his sliced throat. It's a real hair raiser!! But, without revealing too much, I guess I will close by saying that this is by far one of the best horror films I have ever seen. A little strange, but, then again, this IS a Stephen King film. Need I say more??
  • TheOtherFool17 July 2004
    6/10
    Pretty cool
    Maybe not so scary, but pretty cool horror movie after the short story written by Stephen King.

    The children of Gatlin, under the influence of 'priest' Isaac, kill all their parents as it is the wish of the Lord who apparently lives in the corn. 3 years later a couple (Peter Horton and Linda -Terminator- Hamilton) are stranded in that same place. The kids, led by Isaac and his first man Malachai, set up a plan to sacrifice them to their God.

    The movie gets a great start with the children killing their parents, after that it isn't much horror but more of a suspence movie. You got to see this only for the Malachai kid. Great casting!

    6/10.
  • GusF29 November 2015
    A wonderfully awful horror film
    Warning: Spoilers
    Based on the 1977 short story of the same name by Stephen King, this is a wonderfully awful horror film. I have no idea how closely it sticks to the story since I never read it or any of King's work for that matter but the script is horrendously written with more plot holes than you can shake a stick at. The only even remotely clever bits such as the depiction of the mob mentality engendered by cults are taken from either much better works or, unfortunately, real life incidents.

    The film takes a dash of "Village of the Damned" (1960) and a pinch of "The Wicker Man" (1973) to come up with a storyline concerning evil children who sacrifice people to ensure a good corn harvest. Now, I like corn as much as the next guy but this approach seems a little excessive to me. Isaac is basically an older version of Damien from "The Omen" (1976) crossed with Wesley Crusher and the film's score is a poor man's version of that film's. It's essentially a rehash of earlier horror classics. Unlike "The Wicker Man", however, this film actually attempts to make the relevant crop frightening in a few scenes. Amazingly, it doesn't work very well. The director Fritz Kiersch is hardly Richard Attenborough or Kenneth Branagh but he's no Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau either. Some shots are downright or at least borderline competent.

    The plot concerns the lovely little town of Gatlin, Nebraska which is ruled by Isaac and the other followers of He Who Walks Behind the Rows. Three years earlier, Isaac, clearly a very persuasive guy, convinced the rest of the town's children to ritually murder their parents and every other adult in town (bar one mechanic). The town has been occupied only by the cultists since then and no one has noticed in the meantime. Isaac even used his powers of persuasion to convince cartographers to take Gatlin off the maps, apparently. John Franklin's performance as Isaac could not be described as good but, by God (or should I say by He Who Walks Behind the Rows?), it is entertaining. He steals all of his scenes and makes the film far more entertaining than it would been otherwise. My favourite line is "Question not my judgement, Malachai. I am the giver of his word." His delivery and contemptuous expression are simply hilarious. It's a great verbal bitch-slap.

    Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton play the hapless interlopers / outlanders Burt and Vicki who wind up in Gatlin while on the way to Seattle. Hamilton and Horton are actually good actors who deservedly went on to bigger and better things: the "Terminator" franchise and "Beauty and the Beast" (1987) for her and "thirtysomething" for him. On the bright side, they keep the film from being even more terrible. On the less bright side, they keep the film from being even more unintentionally hilarious. The two of them have good chemistry even though their characters express little affection for each other until the end of the film. However, every time that Vicki yelled "Burt!," I mentally added "Ernie!" The only other actor in the film who gives a genuinely decent performance is R.G. Armstrong as Diehl, the aforementioned mechanic. Courtney Gains, whose career peaked the next year with his one line role in "Back to the Future", is awful as Isaac's disloyal second-in-command Malachai but he is not quite as hilariously awful as Franklin. But, hey, he at least put everything into it! The same is true of most of the other child actors, none of whom went on to great success. Incidentally, "Back to the Future" is my favourite film of all time. This film did not threaten that status.

    I mentioned a few of the plot holes already but this is one of the biggest. In the early part of the film, Burt and Vicki exhibit genius level intelligence when they run over a child named Joseph who turned out to be already dead, having had his throat slit. It just wasn't his day. They then decide that it is a good idea to bungle his corpse into the boot of their car and look for help. Right...Did it not occur to them that if they were stopped by the police and they found the body, it might look just a tad suspicious? No one with half a brain would believe that he had been killed by someone else and they were on their way to the authorities. Besides which, wrapping him in a blanket and shoving him into the boot would destroy any and all forensic evidence that may exist. He is never removed from the boot, meaning that he is left there to rot. Very conscientious!

    Another notable one is that the cultists kill Diehl, admittedly without Isaac's permission, for no reason whatsoever as he seems just as willing to abide by the condition that he tells no one of their existence as he was before. Furthermore, Job describes the brutal murder of his father which took place within several feet of him in a very calm fashion. One would think that this would traumatise a child but he and his sister Sarah take their parents' deaths and all the other horrific events in Gatlin in their stride. They actually giggle at the end, amused by the fact that Burt and Vicki kiss. Oh, and Sarah has the unexplained ability to predict the future through her drawings. Sure, why not? When He Who Walks Behind the Rows manifests, he is killed by a comparatively small explosion caused by a Molotov cocktail. One would also think that a demon from the fiery depths of Hell would be made of sterner stuff but apparently not.

    Overall, this is a great "so bad, it's good" film. It may not be down there with "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Troll 2" or "The Room" but it's still pretty far down there.
  • adonis98-743-1865038 November 2015
    10/10
    Great Low Budget Film
    Warning: Spoilers
    Children of the Corn is a 1984 low budget film starring Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton (The Terminator & Terminator 2). First of all this film was entertaining from start to finish the characters were really good and none of them didn't deserve to die and the movie is full of creepy kids with creepy music on the background. As always even tho the film wasn't a big critical success Hollywood decided to milk the cow and make more and more sequels so don't bother with those just watch this one and you will be fine. Many brag about the ending i thought the ending was good for a horror film and at the end i think it was a pretty good film with a good cast and a good story.
  • Jamie Spraggon12 February 2014
    7/10
    An adult nightmare.
    Children of the corn is a 1984 film based on the short story by Stephen King. The story is that a couple who go to Gatlin, Nebraska find themselves in a living nightmare as they are hunted by a cult of children who have been taught by their "preacher" Isaac that everybody over the age of 18 must be killed.

    This film starred: Peter Horton, Linda Hamilton & John Franklin

    In my opinion this is an entertaining film and doesn't deserve all the stick it gets, it isn't great by any means however it's a good film too watch when your bored also a good film to watch with your friends on a night in. I do recommend this film if you have read the short story or if you are a Stephen King fan also to all you 80's cult fans.

    ***/***** Good film.
  • Classic Stephen King
    The murder rate is as high as an elephant's eye in this flaccid adaptation of Stephen King's short story. While driving through Nebraska en route to a new job, medico Burt (Peter Horton) and his wife Vicky (a PR-Terminator Linda Hamilton) nearly run over a mutilated boy who staggers from the cornfields. Seeking help, they enter the town of Gatlin, whose under-20 residents have butchered their parents per the decree of junior-grade holy roller Isaac (John Franklin), who preaches the word of a being called "He Who Walks Behind the Rows." King's original story (from his 1978 collection Night Shift) was a lean and brutal melange of Southern-Gothic atmosphere and E.C. Comics-style gore, which script Greg Goldsmith effectively neutralizes by adding a youthful narrator (a grating Robbie Kiger) and putting an upbeat spin on the story's morbid conclusion. Fritz Kiersch's direction is TV-movie flat, with the sole inspired moment (hideous religious iconography glimpsed during a bloody "service") delivered as a throwaway. Aside from Horton and Courtney Gains (as Isaac's hatchet man Malachai), the performances are dreadful, and the depiction of the Lovecraftian monster-god as a sort of giant gopher inspires more laughter than terror. Amazingly, the film spawned six sequels; Franklin (Cousin Itt in the Addams Family films) later appeared in and wrote 1999's Children of the Corn 666.
  • curlygirl20017 February 2003
    10/10
    I love this movie
    Warning: Spoilers
    I dunno what it is about this movie, but it is so addictive. The first time i watched it it scared the mess outta me! But I really liked it and watched it over and over. I myself am a fan of older horror movies, and this movie is for sure a lot better then some of the so called horror movies now days. Some of the stuff i didn't really like though (SPOILER) I didn't really like the way they drew on Jesus's picture, and i didn't care to much for there gathering when Issac preached about their "god" "He Who Walks Behind the Rows". But other then that i really liked this movie and would reccomend it to anyone who likes being freeked out!
  • spire6527 October 2002
    9/10
    Why it's one of the most unique horror films
    It's very easy to identify what about it made it unique. Unlike a lot of horror films, especially many of the modern slashers, Children of the Corn managed to be a terrifying tale without much gore. Instead, what makes the film great in my opinion is how disturbing it is. It portrays cult fanaticism and the power of ideas.
  • flawless-19 July 2001
    10/10
    Like it or Hate it
    Like many of the Corn movies (seven as of 2001!) I find that either people like this one or hate it. Some viewers despise the plot and say the setting is cheesy and the acting is bad, and that after watching it years later after we've all our bad tastes of horror flicks- let us not forget the Scream series- they find it is not as scary anymore. All I have to say is that if you're open-minded and you're into a plot about what would happen if these kids took over (sound familiar? sounds like my home town...) then definitely see it. I, personally, love this movie, although I started the second one and I couldn't finish it because I was laughing too hard. I'll try the third one, but really, the original horror movies are usually the best and in this case that is very true. On to the plot: This is basically about two newcomers who come to this deserted town and find out that these children are actually killers and worship 'Thee Who Walks Behind the Rows', a demon in the corn fields that speaks to Issac only, the leader of the children. Of course, there's the rebellious Malachai who turns it all around for the children in the end, and then to make matters worse there are now two new adults: things really get busy! I think this is the most appealing because you pretty much find out everything as the adults do, as opposed to the other movies where you pretty much expect just all these adult killings, although I've only seen the 6th one (which should be illegal in the US because it's so horrible). But anyway, a 7th Corn Movie is on its way, and it's on Post Production last time I checked, so maybe things have turned around! All I can see is that a new sequel is coming out every two years, but none will ever match up to this one. So see it! I give it an 8 out of 10!
  • COTCgirl13 April 2005
    10/10
    Beware of He Who Picks The Corn
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is AWESOME!!!!! Open with a coffee shop massacre. That'll get the audience's attention. Prologue: To sum it up spooky cult of children kill all the adults and worship a corn deity named He Who Walks Behind the Rows. *3 years later* Burt Stanton and his girlfriend Vicky are on a cross country road trip to Seattle. Trying to push their arguments aside, they try to focus on being a couple. While driving through rural Nebraska the two run over a boy who's stumbling in the middle of the road. When Burt reaches him the med student finds that the boy's throat was already slashed when he stumbled into the road. Who is he? Where did he come from? The couple stops at a near by almost ghost-townish like gas station. The old man there tells them to turn back and go to the near-by town of Hemmingford. Discourged the couple decide to go to Gatlin, a town that is closer instead. What they find there is every parents worst nightmare!!! The towns children are a cult of murderous malcontents. Children who wield sickles, scythes, and machetes and chant, "Spill the blood of the outlanders." The children are led by a boy preacher named Isaac Chorner and his henchman Malachai. And they worship an evil corn deity named He Who Walks Behind the Rows. These two characters (Isaac and Malachai) alone are enough to make your skin crawl! The machete twirling Malachai, and the "Giver of his word" Isaac will have you hiding your head under the covers. As for the rest of the story if you really want to know you'll have to watch the movie yourself. But to it's credibility this one movie has now spawned 6 sequels. Some good some not so swell. But there is no denying that Children of the Corn is one of the best horror films EVER made. As my name suggests I am COTCgirl. I am probably one of the biggest fans of the COTC films. So take my advice see this 80's classic for yourself. Then pick a row for yourself and join me in loving this wonderful treat of a film!

    "A CHILD SHALL LEAD THEM"

    If you liked this one do see the sequels even though some are not so good. Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice, Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest, Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering, Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror, Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return, and Children of the Corn Revelation.
  • fidelio7413 December 2010
    2/10
    Stephen King's Children of the Yawn
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is a really disappointing adaptation of an excellent and terrifying short story which appeared as part of American horror novelist Stephen King's first anthology of short stories, 1978's 'Night Shift'. King's story offers a dreadful sense of growing unease and a truly horrific ending which is completely scrapped in the movie version.

    The good news about the film is that Linda Hamilton stars; if she has ever delivered a bad performance I have not seen it. She has a toughness and a vulnerability at the same time, and is an extremely likable actress. I just wish she made more movies; I remember seeing her many years ago as the violated wife in the harrowing telemovie 'Rape and Marriage: The Rideout Case'. Hamilton made 'Children' shortly before playing tough heroine Sarah Connor in 'The Terminator', the role for which she is most famous.

    Burt (Peter Horton) and Vicky (Linda Hamilton) arrive in the small town of Gatlin, Nebraska to find that a small group of mutinous children led by the Damien Thorn-like Isaac (John Franklin) have risen up and murdered nearly all the adults in their town. At the unhinged Isaac's behest, they worship He Who Walks Behind the Rows, and they are not above sacrificing the odd grown up to this mysterious figure.

    The shadowy presence of He Who Walks Behind the Rows pervades King's taut tale. In the story, Burt is killed by this thing a few hours after he finds his wife crucified, her eyes plucked out and the empty sockets filled with corn husks. It is an incredibly downbeat and horrible ending to a great story, and draws most of its strength and power from the fact that we do not ever really find out what exactly He Who Walks Behind the Rows is. Is it human? This clever method of suggesting rather than showing horror is discussed by King in his wonderful and nostalgic non-fiction book 'Danse Macabre'. He recalls always being disappointed when a monster was finally unveiled in a horror film. According to King, your imagination will always summon a beast much more frightening than something that a special makeup effects man has dreamt up. Unfortunately, the horror of He Who Walks Behind the Rows is totally diffused by this film. Instead of some terrifying presence, we get an awful electrical current, the product of some pretty shoddy early eighties special visual effects work.

    But the worst thing about this movie is the happy ending. As I wrote, King's ending is far better and a hell of a lot scarier. It would have been extremely powerful had Burt and Vicky met a grisly fate more faithful to King's original vision. These are likable characters; we do not want to see something bad befall them. So a downbeat ending would have been that much more effective. The loss of these characters would have been depressing and unsettling. Instead, what we end up with is a forgettable ending to a forgettable film. 'The Shawshank Redemption' this most certainly is not.
  • Tspeedracr22 January 2005
    3/10
    Children of the CORNY
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was a real let down. It started off creepy enough with the slashing of some elderly throats and some mystical choking. I liked the part with Sarah (the young girl) in the beginning and her nightmares but then it went downhill, and then some. The movie lacked an explanation for anything that happened, and most of the events seemed to jump out of nowhere. The whole "The one who walks behind the rows" thing was an attempt to have some type of mystery and intrigue but in the end we find that it really makes no sense at all when some random monster just appears from no where, burrowing underneath the soil… yeah that makes lots of sense? The worst part about this movie it that it really made no sense at all. It never explained anything that happened, like why Job and Sarah seemed to be immune to the thrall of the cult that Isaac so easily asserts upon the other children in the town. Also, why the town so swiftly became a mysterious and "hidden" down that yielded power so easily, such as from the old man at the gas station, in only a few days. The adults die and suddenly the town's off the maps and the sky seems to yield to the children's will, it all happens too fast and with no explanation as to how Isaac and Malachai attain their god-like status.

    This movie seems to be quite the cult classic, and must have done very well judging by the parade of sequels that followed in its outdated footsteps. It's really too bad, perhaps if this movie had never been created all the other terrible Sequels would not have been made either. My advice is to stay away from this movie, you'll expect too much due to its fame and come away disappointed and angry, mumbling something to yourself about the structure that plots are supposed to follow in movies. I wouldn't even suggest this movie for a laughable scary flick, I would instead shy away from it totally as it fails on both fronts, I guess the problem is it takes itself far too seriously in correspondence to its laughable plot and story and ends up really sucking.
  • michaeldaly9916 September 2001
    10/10
    the start of an amazing series
    this movie, the only one of the COTC series written by Stephen King, truly kicks ass. the special effects are excellent considering it was made in 1984. acting is excellent, the two star actors are excellent, and the COTC leader Issac (who makes a return in COTC 6: Issac's Return) is an excellent actor and malakai, the rival leader, is wicked scary. This is definitely the scariest of the series. I rate this 9.8/10. If u like this, then watch COTC 2: The Final Sacrifice, another great movie.

    Cert: 18s, for frequent and gory violence, and occasional language
  • Daniel Ispas2 February 2011
    10/10
    I f.ucking LOVE this movie!
    Man, I truly LOVE this movie! It is without a doubt one of my all time favorites. I remember watching this movie as a little kid and it scared the hell out of me! The key of the movie is the atmosphere that the movie creates. The actors are great, it has Sarah Connor before The Terminator, and the kids are surprisingly very good. John Franklin as Isaac is a great performance and a great character, he's magnific and creepy. Courtney Gains as Malachai is a great character, with a great look, memorable face and lines.

    But the best thing about this movie is the music! The music here is absolutely genius! It gives me chills every time I hear that tune, especially the scene with Linda Hamilton's dream. That scene gave me nightmares as child and it still scares me! It's a great movie, with great story, great actors, great characters, great lines, genius music and great atmosphere. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!
  • Coventry17 June 2005
    4/10
    Beware of Dude Who Walks Behind The Rows...
    Horror movies based on Stephen King's writings are often very overrated and especially the ones inspired by his short stories are difficult to endure. It's pretty logical, I suppose... King made it a SHORT story, so a long-feature film handling about the same matter is likely to be tedious! "Children of the Corn" is an excellent example to state this 'theory': the idea is good and the atmosphere is creepy but the script is far too weak to make the film memorable. Vicky and Burt are a young couple on their way to a new life when they're driving through the lonely state of Nebraska. They strand in the grisly town of Gatlin; a place where the children murdered all the adults and formed a satanical cult that gathers in the immense corn fields. The premise contains many good aspects, like the isolated filming location, the compelling musical score, the appellation of the supernatural 'evil' character (He Who Walks Behind The Rows) and the casting of the town's two main freak-boys Isaac (John Franklin) and Malachai (redhead Courtney Gains in his debut). But, regretfully enough, there are too many clichés and predictable twists that ruin everything! The cheap visual effects during the finale destroy all the suspense which was build up rather ingeniously.

    "Children of the Corn" certainly wasn't the first horror picture handling about murderous youngsters and by no means it is the best! In 1976, there was this creepy Spanish gem called "Quién Puede Matar a un Niño", which easily qualifies as one of the most disturbing horror efforts ever made. The reason why this film is so successful compared to "Children of the Corn" is partly because of the evoked feelings of total hopelessness AND because it constantly remains unclear why the children suddenly became violent.
  • Krissz29 March 2005
    1/10
    What a bad movie
    Warning: Spoilers
    The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.

    This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin and pretty generic when you think of horror films. This makes the movie bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN???!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.

    The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen. Why? THEY SHOW YOU! yes, when something is going to happen BAM you see what it is and, well, see the murder. In the scene where they are escaping through the corn field, well, I thought in the beginning of the scene it was scary but the way they delivered the scare, ruined it! They have some chances to get scary but every time they are about to be scary, they deliver it pretty badly. This has to do with a bad director who apparently doesn't know HOW to make a movie about a cornfield scary.

    Conclusion: The movie is bad! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.
  • Vassago24 August 2000
    1/10
    The horror, the horror...
    Can you guess what I'm going to say? The adaptations of Stephen King's works tend to place themselves among the worst, most laughable horror movies ever made, unless a great director is at work (John Carpenter and Stanley Kubrick being good examples). "Children of the Corn" is probably the worst of all those adaptations. It takes King's magnificent short story and stretches it impossibly, to end as a long idiotic bore, with actors either wooden or hammy, moronic script, preposterous plot, lame effects and brainless directing. The only good thing about it is the truly atmospheric score. Too bad so good a soundtrack was wasted on this trash.
  • John Doe17 October 2005
    1/10
    hate or love it, the under dog.... i hate it
    Malachi or whatever the crap his name was, just ran around screaming at the kids with his insanely huge ass mouth, generally pissing me off. I'm no professional film critic, but I know what I feel, and what i felt during that movie was utter and complete sadness for Stephen King, one of my favorite writers. Whenever the annoying big mouth guy had the chance to do anything, he would stall, and the main Outlander guy would half ass his way out of an impossible situation. This movie is like (however long it was) of running around and watching the big mouthed idiot scream OUTLANDER. The book which I actually read was much better. Simply because of the fact that it happens in your head, and in your head, the characters has much better acting...
  • Elswet21 March 2007
    3/10
    Mediocre, But What Else Would You Expect From A King Adaptation?
    While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.

    The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean.

    The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining.

    The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.

    It rates a 3.1/10 from...

    the Fiend :.
An error has occured. Please try again.