Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995) User Reviews (101)

This one is rancid n moldy.

[Fella_shibby · 3/10 · 4 December 2020]

I first saw this in the mid 90s on a vhs. Kinda hated the film then cos they moved the settings from the rural town to a city. Revisited it recently n had a good laugh at the cheesy monster. Some of the creature films from the 50s r better than this lousy jumbled mess.

This is the third film in the Children of the Corn series and not a continuation of the previous two. Two brothers are adopted from a rural town after their father is murdered in the corn fields. The brothers r brought to Chicago by their new parents.

This one is not at all scary, ther is no tension or atmosphere. The acting is awful but it is a bit gory. This lame horror film has Charlize Theron in her first non-speaking role.

Fairly Decent... Until the Last 10 Minutes.

[drownsoda90 · 5/10 · 2 January 2005]

"Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" is the one of best Children of the Corn sequel of them all, in my opinion. It is about two brothers, one good and one evil who worships "he who walks behind the rows". The brothers are sent to a foster home in the big-city Los Angeles, which is an entirely different setting than what the kids are used to. After they move in with their foster family, bad things begin to happen, and people start to die in mysterious ways. And it's just a little strange that a cornfield is seeming to grow in an abandoned factory lot next door to the house...

I thought this film had some creative moments and some good things to offer. Particularly, I loved the death scene of the mother, Amanda. I won't tell you how she dies, but it was creative death scene and was very original. This is a decent movie, but it begins to drop way down within the last 10 minutes. The monster at the end was so horribly fake looking, it was extremely poor CGI effects. Also, when the monster lifts the girl up into the air, you can clearly see that it was a miniature doll that was used (it looked like a Barbie). The whole monster thing was completely ridiculous, and it's effects made the whole premise even worse.

Anyways, I enjoyed this sequel to the "Children of the Corn" series. It's stylish and has some good moments in it, but the last 10 minutes of it were a little too much for me and almost ruined the entire movie. If you are a series fan, check it out, but the horrible special effects may bring the movie down. 5/10.

Children of the Corn III Urban Harvest: Another underwhelming sequel

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 14 June 2018]

This third part of the franchise see's two children from the original town massacre adopted and moved to the big city. One takes to his new surroundings well and begins to make friends while his younger brother continues his loyalty to "He who behinds behind the rows"

For a start I was glad of the new setting, however it quickly became apparent that they really weren't going to utilize it.

Eli becomes yet another child preacher and alike those before him is obnoxious and plays his well really well.

The film itself plays out basically exactly as you'd expect. Religion, a few deaths and an "Ultimate showdown" at the end.

Not good, not bad, just more of the same when by all rights it should have been really quite different.

The Good:

Follows on quite well

The Bad:

Nothing exactly stands out

Some ropey sfx at the end

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Corn cross, corn bible, whole things getting a bit corny

Ambitious and Surprising Sequel

[idlehands2k · 26 November 2001]

After the disappointing "Children of the Corn II", the 1996 direct-to-video sequel subtitled "Urban Harvest" moves the setting from a rural Midwestern town to the Windy City of Chicago. A change of atmosphere gives the "Children of the Corn" franchise a much-needed boost and this entry is sometimes scary, often imaginative and boasts some unique special effects.

A couple (Jim Metzler and Nancy Lee Grahn) adopt a pair of abandoned teens. The older one (Ron Melendez) is conflicted with his Gatlin, Nebraska past, while the younger one (Daniel Cerny) prepares to recruit an all new batch of followers to resurrect He Who Walks Behind the Rows.

The movie is pretty tense and actually works on many levels... but the finale -- while planned out well -- looks really cheap onscreen and brings about lots of unintentional laughter.

"Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" is one of the strongest entries in the franchise, and for the first 85 of its 91 minute running time, it proves to be a first-rate thriller.

The best out of the corn lot!

[benjamin-ryan · 5/10 · 9 July 2005]

Children of the corn III: urban harvest is one of the best cotc movie if not the best. It is different from the other cotc movies because it is set in the city of Chicago instead of the country town of Gatlin which is different but being different is not bad but it might not please the fans of the series. The story is about two brothers who's father gets killed so they are taken in by a couple from Chicago, then the terror starts.I didn't mind the movie it but the last ten minutes were just horrible the creature was just disturbing and I didn't know that He Who Walks Behind The Rows liked to play with Barbie dolls. You don't have to watch the first two movies to understand this but you might not get who He Who Walks Behind The Rows is. Overall this movie is OK and if you want a few laughs at the mistakes in the movie then watch it you might end up liking it.

Corny Sequel Gets a Pass for Delivering Some Cheap Fun.

[Mr_Censored · 4/10 · 3 February 2010]

"Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" is a somewhat tacky and unnecessary sequel to the moderately successful Stephen King adaptation and its slightly under-rated sequel.

In the film, two youths from Gatlin (the setting of the first two films) are taken in by a yuppie couple in Chicago. The older of the two fits in relatively well, but the younger has plans of his own. Planting a corn field in the abandoned property next door, he creeps out his adoptive parents and eventually converts the entire teenage population to his maze worshipping cult.

Despite a predictable plot that seems to be missing chunks (at what point did Eli win over his peers?), dodgy special effects and wooden performances by its relatively unknown cast, the film is moderately enjoyable for what it is. If you want to see some brutal and over-the-top death scenes committed by vegetation, then "Children of the Corn III" hardly disappoints. Elsewhere, however, the film comes up short, and that's all there really is to it.

The film was dumped in theaters briefly in 1994 before being thrust into complete oblivion, making room for four direct-to-video sequels and a made-for-TV remake. Look closely, and you'll spot Charlize Theron in her very first role as an extra.

epitome of tacky horror

[leandros · 3/10 · 1 May 2009]

Apart from the Texas-sized loopholes in the script, this film is one of the corniest horror films I have ever watched. Stephen King is credited as one of the writers, and this is surprising to see as it is unclear if he has actually contributed to the script or this film was inspired from King's initial novel. The acting is quite mediocre, but the special effects are of record tackiness, with human puppets of the amazing quality of voodoo dolls. The gore factor is satisfying, even unexpectedly high. The reference to environmental issues as a contemporary premise to any evil we see on screen is flimsy and ephemeral. Overall, spare a few bucks to rent this on a Saturday night in with your friends and pizza.

The best in the series (although that's not saying much)

[TheRowdyMan · 4/10 · 1 January 2003]

Taking the story away from the small rural town of Gatling was a smart move, as the third instalment of the Corn series plays out like the thriller that the first one was meant to be. Daniel Cerny is excellent as the evil brother Eli Porter, being hands down the best in the long line-up of evil child cult leaders. Unfortunately, this all comes unstuck because of the film's tiny budget and straight to video standards. The unevenness of the special effects become obvious, even annoying, during the last 20 minutes. The films finale a ridiculous looking giant monster, sees a B+ telemovie turn into Z grade crap (complete with blue screen matted monster and Barbie dolls being eating by the dozens). Besides the disappointing ending, COTC 3 is not a bad entry into a pretty below average series.

Fun For the Whole Family!

[I_can_get_you_a_toe · 5/10 · 11 May 2011]

The movie opens in Gatlin. Hello Gatlin! It's nice to see you again. Oh, hi corn! Glad you're here too.

A man comes out of a trailer, drunk and holding a scythe and starts chasing his son through the corn – for what I can only assume is to chop him up into little pieces and then eat them, or maybe sell them for money. I don't know. Son runs to his little brother who's half his size and gets him to deal with it.

This is how we are introduced to the hammy acting skills of Eli and his brother Joshua. Two brothers, who like all kids of Gatlin – kill their father. Thus sending Eli and Joshua to Da Hood.

They move in with their foster parents, Eli bringing corn with him – and it's all magic corn that kills people.

Eli and Joshua attend school and find themselves starting to grow apart, they're still sharing a bed mind you, and as Joshua proves himself on the Basketball court (where EVERYTHING counts) and makes new friends. Eli gets angry at his brother asking why he's not with him anymore and that he loves him so much and needs to be with him all the time and to never ever leave him. Well he doesn't exactly say that – but his eyes told me that's what he was feeling.

So apparently Eli is all evil and I think the movie was trying to push across that he was the devil? They really need to stop coming up with convoluted and over-reaching explanations when crazy religious kids who worship some corn demon works just fine.

My favourite death was of the foster mother, who tripped over a pole and impaled her skull with a piece of pipe. Awesome. The ick factor goes up slightly when you think that one of her last memories on earth were of her super young foster son tonguing her ear. Nice.

As Eli starts to convert the city kids to his cracked way of thinking and to start killing off their parents – Joshua heads back to Gatlin (Yay! Gatlin) which must be just around the corner from Chicago, to save the freaking day.

While no where near as crappy as Children of the Corn 2: Final Sacrifice, this only rates slightly above in terms of inventive deaths and gore. And really, set in the city? It's about CORN movie people; a 3 row corn 'field' at the back of an abandoned warehouse is not creepy at all. It's weird.

Charlize Theron is an extra in this movie. She must be so proud.

Next up, Children of the Corn 4: Space Corn.

Almost good...

[jluis1984 · 7/10 · 28 November 2005]

...but ruined by the ending. The infamous ending of the third part of the Children of the Corn series feels like a disaster of epic proportions that kills what otherwise could be a near perfect movie. Nevertheless, this movie has many good things that are worth a watch.

The plot is a very good twist to the well-known saga of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows". After the horrifying events in Gatlin, two brothers, Eli(Daniel Cerny) & Joshua(Ron Melendez) are sent to a foster house in Chicago. Their new family is very eager to have children and gives them a warm welcome, but Eli & Joshua feel the cultural shock as they try to get used to the urban environment. While Joshua tries to fit in, the younger Eli begins to plant corn in order to bring the cult of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" to the world.

It is indeed a very good script, and for the most part it works. It is a huge improvement over the past sequels and in my humble opinion, sometimes it even surpasses the original. Daniel Cerny's performance is outstanding and one wonders why he suddenly stopped working when he was one of the very few child actors who could give a believable performance.

The eerie atmosphere is back and there are great moments of suspense and surrealistic imagery. This is what Children of the Corn movies should be. The direction is pretty good, and it handles the script with perfection and lets it flow with good rhythm.

If all these is so good, what can be so bad that makes the movie fail in the end? Without giving spoilers, let me just say that even when the SFX are top-notch for a low-budget movie; the ending pretends to be of epic proportions and ends up being one of the biggest SFX disasters ever.

Don't get me wrong, even with it's HUGE SFX faults, it still is better than average, but it breaks everything that was build up to that moment, the eerie atmosphere fill with suspense turns into a savage gore fest in the style of "Evil Dead" but without the talent. It just feels like a different movie.

Overall, it's worth a rent, especially for Daniel Cerny's performance who truly saves the film(no surprise that it's when he is gone that the movie falls down). It's good entertainment if you see it with a open mind.

7/10

Pretty awful movie

[Homestar_Runner20X6 · 2/10 · 11 January 2005]

Most horror movies are downright awful, but this one is even worse than Cabin Fever!!! The acting is horrible, the deaths are predictable and nonsensical...and there's even a scene with a VERY VERY fake doll being used, when the plant monster grabs the girl. It's impossible to miss it. The only thing remotely enjoyable about this movie is the very brief cameo by Nicholas Brendan(Xander on Buffy The Vampire Slayer) as one of the basketball players. All in all this movie sucked. The concept sucks. The franchise sucks. I really don't understand how movies like this keep getting made...especially sequels. My advice is to avoid this at all costs, unless you're really simple minded or you're in the mood to tear something apart.

Best Of The Series

[danthewrestlingmanorigin · 8/10 · 19 October 2006]

This film has been unfairly slammed on here. It's no classic, but still it was an entertaining ride. First off the Eli kid was creepy, and not annoying, as many child stars tend to be nowadays. The kills were solid, malcolm's was nasty, and the mother's death was well done, with the water coming out of her mouth. The Corn series is not that good as a whole, but this one is very entertaining, and deliver's on the gore. The Corn monster at the end was a little cheesy, but the carnage, and kills it inflicts are off the hook. I rate all movies differently, but as horror sequels' go, I can't think of two many bad things to say about this one, the gore was here, the acting was solid, and I was never bored.

Good movie that falls apart in the last 10 minutes. !SPOILER ALERT!

[LT-10 · 6/10 · 31 December 1999]

I know that there not the best movies ever made, but I enjoyed the first two movies in this series. I was thinking the same about this one but the part with the living scarecrow and the horrible special effects from the monster changed how I thought about this movie. !SPOILER ALERT! It would have been better if Eli was killed more slowly and then end it with a few flashes and stuff, throw the ministers bible in the flashes. That way the horrible monster effect could have been avoided. I didn't think Eli's step-mother should have died (I forget her name, lets call her the girl from General Hospital) It was a very good death scene but it should have happened to someone else. This movie really wasn't totally necessary, but it can be entertaining you just sit back and go with the flow.

Good Premise Ruined by Absurd CGI

[Uriah43 · 3/10 · 19 May 2020]

Abused as children and following the death of their father, two teenage brothers by the names of "Eli Porter" (Daniel Cerny) and "Joshua Porter" (Ron Melendez) are adopted by a man named "William Porter" (Jim Metzler) and his wife "Amanda Porter" (Nancy Lee Grahn) and taken from rural Nebraska to Chicago. At first, neither Eli nor Joshua seem to fit in at school, however, when Joshua begins to make some friends his younger brother Eli becomes quite jealous and subsequently takes matters into his own hand by planting a garden with a special type of corn in order to summon the monster known as "He Who Walks Behind the Rows". And it's then that the real terror begins. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that even though I liked the initial premise of this film the longer it continued the more ludicrous it got. I especially didn't care for the preposterous ending. That said, I don't consider this to be nearly as good as its two predecessors and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Below average.

Best in the series! (Spoilers)

[willywants · 21 March 2004]

PLOT: Two young Gatling residents are orphaned after the younger brother kills their father. So, the terror of Gatling goes urban when the two boys are placed in the custody of two foster parents. The younger brother (who by this point is established as the "evil one") bought some corn seeds along for the road and plants them in the courtyard of an abandoned warehouse, bring He Who Walks Behind the Rows to the city. He winds up possessing his high school peers, and soon his older brother feels called to stop him.

DIRECTING:8/10- I was very impressed with James D.R. Hickox's direction. Lots of slow-motion shots, "28 days later"-type photography, wide shots, and more. Good job!

ACTING: 9/10- Performances are all-around excellent, especially Daniel Cerny.......What ever happened to him? everyone else does great, too.

WRITING: 7/10- The script is full of solid scares and characters, Cerny's character (Eli) is given especially memorable lines.

GORE: 9/10- This is easily the goriest entry in the series. A man gets his arms ripped-off (made me cringe), his eyes and mouth sewn shut, and is then left to die, A woman's face catches on fire than litterally melts on screen (This one will give little kids nightmares for sure), a man's head is ripped off and is left on the end of a cartoonishly long spinal in the air (Gory, but more likely to arrouse laughs), a woman's head bursts open to reveal a colony of insects, a man coughs up cockroaches then dies, a man's face is torn up by a living statue of the virgin mary, a woman falls on a spicket and is impalled through her head, bloody water flows through her mouth, A man gets a scycle through his heart, a homeless man gets his eye's gouged out by vines, and a creature at the end of the film uses tentacles to mutilate many teens. There is also mild creature violence.

MONSTERS: We get a killer scare-crow creature, a giant multi-armed tentacle monster, killer vines,a living statue, and more.

SPECIAL F/X: 9/10- Effects-nut screaming Mad George (The man responsible for the gnarly effects in "Society")cooks up the goods here, and gets an A in my book. The gore effects look excellent and painfully realistic at times. Nice!

MUSIC SCORE: 8/10- Very dark score here. Best score in the series and used to great effect.

FINAL VERDICT:"Children of the corn 3" is the best in the series, case closed. The performances are fantastic, the direction is stylish, the effects, for the most-part, are excellent (With the exception of a giant monster at the end), the score is dark and moody, and it's a good change bringing the dried-up plot to Chicago. Recommended! My rating for "Children of the corn 3"--7.5-10.

Starting to get corny...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 23 March 2023]

As I sat down to watch the 1995 horror movie "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" here in 2023, it was actually for the first time. Yeah, I didn't really have much of an interest in this franchise back in the 90s, so I never really got around to watching any of them, aside from the original 1984 first movie.

So as I had just sat through parts I and II, of course I opted to continue on and watch part III as well.

The storyline in "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest", as written by Dode B. LEvenson and Matt Greenberg, was somewhat different from the previous two movies, as in this taking place within an urban setting. Did it work? Well, both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the movie was corny - pardon the pun - enough to actually be watchable. And no, because it didn't really feel like the previous two movies given the chance of scenery and setting.

The acting performances in "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" were fairly okay. I wasn't familiar with the majority of the cast ensemble, aside from Michael Ensign and Ed Grady.

Visually then "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" was okay. The effects are aging and it shows, but it worked out well enough, adding some cheesy charm to the movie.

However, I didn't really find the storyline all that great, to be bluntly honest, and thus my rating of "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" lands on a four out of ten stars.

I Have Seen Worse

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 7 March 2013]

Two brothers, formerly of the murderous children's cult of Gatlin, Nebraska, are taken to Chicago by an unwitting couple.

Others point out this was the film debut of Charlize Theron, which is pretty cool. Although, being that she has no lines and is not credited, it is unfortunately not much of a start. (Though it does give this film some indirect prestige it probably does not deserve.)

I am sorry to pick on a kid, but the actor playing Eli (Daniel Cerny) is terrible. Maybe it is partially because he was given some awful lines to work with, but I just felt like every scene he had, the film went immediately downhill.

There are some good things -- Josh playing basketball in his farm clothes, the decent effects on the death scenes (the water pipe, the burning face). I believe Oscar-winning Mark Bridges worked on the costumes (although this is far from his best work).

Watch At Your Own Risk

[elpaz79903 · 1/10 · 21 December 2005]

I saw this boring installment long ago when it first came out on video. After finally seeing the He Who Walks Among The Rows, I was like, this is the idol those kids worship, and ticked off at the stupidity this movie tried to pass off as scary. To me it looked like a five year old wrote the script and the people over at Dimension were desperate for money. Don't bother with this movie, unless you are a Definite fan of the first movie. For me being a horror movie buff, I would recommend watching only the first part and forgetting about the other sequels because man this movie and the second part really stunk to high HECK.

1/10 Stars

Laughably awful

[duce122 · 2/10 · 8 November 2002]

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1994) D: James D.R. Hickox. Daniel Cerny, Ron Melendez, Jim Metzler, Nancy Grahn, Michael Ensign, Mari Morrow, Jon Clair, Duke Stroud, Rif Hutton. Despite a terrific performance from young Cerny as the evil child Eli, most of this wretched third entry in the CHILDREN OF THE CORN series is laughably awful. The plot concerns two orphans (one of them being Eli) moving into urban Chicago, where the younger one wreaks havoc on his foster parents, high school students, and a priest who doesn't seem to have it all together to begin with. Another direct-to-video loser with buckets of fake looking gore (and extremely lousy special effects), this film was released in 1994 but the bad quality makes it looks 10 years older. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, strong language, and sexual situations.

B-movie fun

[kirkwuk · 3/10 · 1 April 2006]

When you come out with a something as naff as COTC2, you're under no pressure coming out with a better second sequel. That's good because it's B-movie time again folks, let's spend another 90 minutes with that guy who hides behind the rows. This time he's decided it's about time to show his face, even if it is for just two minutes. A bit like one of those "Magic Exposed" shows.

Not unlike the previous outing in this dreadful series, two Amish kids are adopted by an American family. One (Eli) is a member of the weird cult - you have to hate those kids, because it's not cool or clever to hang out in cornfields son. Proper kids play basketball, swear and do high-fives like your step-brother. You also lose man-points for kissing your mother.

After about ten minutes the deaths are in fast and thick. There are some good ones in there, but the money shot is with the single most funny vomit scene in movie history. Never have I seen a cockroach make a grown man vomit tomato soup.

With that odd behaviour in mind, Eli's stepdad announces he's going to make a company out of Eli's odd corn-growing habits. I doubt that corn's healthy considering it appears to be growing on moisture from blood in an abandoned factory.

Even with all the stupidity I still managed to enjoy COTC3 up until the last five minutes. Why? Because He Who Walks Behind The Rows is far too ugly to be a likable god. In 1995 you expect him to move at more than five frames a second.

strangely enjoyable

[snafflemonkey · 7/10 · 16 November 2005]

Surely there can't be more children from Gatlin trying to find a new home? This entry changes the setting of the series from a small rural town to the big city and the change of location doesn't really work. The concept of the children killing all the adults because of "He who walks behind the rows" could work in an isolated town but in a large urban area the idea of the huge cornfield springing up from nowhere is just more laughable than anything.

Having said all that there is much to enjoy in this film - the acting is better than is usual for this sort of thing, the special effects - up until the end, are quite good and there are some effective horror moments and the running time doesn't drag.

As has been mentioned by others the monster at the end of the film is something to behold, it looks extremely fake but oddly it just adds to the charm of this sequel.

This entry is the last to really follow the storyline from the first 2 with any regard to a continuing plot until the dire part 6, so if you enjoy cheap horror your better sticking with the first 3.

Never stand between a freaky Amish kid and his beloved corn!

[Coventry · 5/10 · 10 December 2006]

At the time of writing this review, "Children of the Corn III" is listed in IMDb's bottom 100 movies. Only at spot 97, true, but still chosen by many voters on this website as one of the hundred WORST movies out there in movie-land. Well okay, it's unquestionably a bad film, but it's very well endurable and actually pretty fun in case you're just looking for some extreme gore and laughable dialogs. Personally, I had no problems with any of the previous "COTC"-films, but it's an overall forgettable franchise with a silly premise and only the occasional atmospheric moment. This third installment in the series especially suffers from a total lack of originality. The rural Nebraska setting is exchanged for the big Chicago, but everything else is the same with an evil little kid nagging about Some Guy Who Walks Behind The Rows and brutally killing all the adults that come too close to his precious corn. Siblings Josh (long and dumb) and Eli (short and malicious) move in with their new family and while Josh is trying to fit in with the gangsta-school kids, Eli grows corn in the backyard and brainwashes everyone under the age of 19 to worship the crops. Don't expect a coherent storyline or breathtaking suspense, but there sure are the several sick killings of innocent people to 'enjoy'. There are very few sympathetic characters in this film and yet they die in the most horribly imaginative ways! The most amiable person in the cast has a nasty water pipe accident, whilst another poor soul has her face burnt away. Typical harvesting tools like shovels and scythes are working overtime, too! The climax is completely over-the-top in the gore department, as literally dozens of teenagers are devoured by a Tremors-like worm monster. Most of the make-up effects are pretty decent, except when the giant corn-worm is too obviously eating little puppets instead of real teens. Hickox' directing is rather weak, but it was his first achievement. Then again, he made "Blood Surf" and "Sabretooth" half a decade later, and those suck as well. Daniel Cerny is effectively creepy sometimes, though he preaches too much and his passion for corn is perhaps the most disturbing element about the whole movie. Freaking weirdo!

Children of the Corn III is a awesome movie!

[Fire_angel_blunt_02 · 10/10 · 10 March 2005]

Children of the Corn III is a great movie, I think that it was a great idea to kind of go back to the first Children of the Corn, having the one kid kind of taking control over all the other kids. It really had you leaning forward in your seat to see what would happen next. I also rate it a 10 because it had a lot of scary bloody scenes. And that is how a scary movie should be. Some people say that sequels are never as good as the original one, but I disagree, with the Children of the Corn series, the sequels prove to be as good if not better than the original. The actors in this movie were great, they really got into their characters. Especially Daniel Cerny, he's such a hottie, and he's a great actor. He really got into his character or so it seemed. I wish that he would do more movies. In this movie and in Demonic Toys he played an evil little kid, yet in Doc Hollywood he played a innocent little boy trying to stomp on a spider, so cute. So in my eyes Children of the Corn III and the rest of Children of the Corn movies are all 10's,I'll never dislike any of these movies. FOr anyone who likes blood and scenes that make you jump, check out the Children of the Corn movies.

A notch above your average straight-to-tape flick

[Bronis · 6/10 · 23 September 1999]

COTC3 is not that bad. Seriously. It is a gory, silly, watchable horror flick that, despite being a third in a series (that never should've started anyway), is a notch above your average B-horror film. I recommend it because it's got a lot of clever gore and some freaky scare scenes. Infinitely better than the last two, this one's a lowest common denominator entertainer. GRADE: B-

Don't bother.

[gridoon · 4/10 · 11 August 2000]

Third "Corn" entry, and there is no compelling reason for you to watch it. Although it's slicker than "Part II", and occasionally displays some originality in the staging of the killings, it is ultimately defeated by its pointlessness. The "evil" boy in the movie seems obsessed with "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", but we don't share his feelings, and we can't really identify with "the good guys", either. (**)