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.
Add a Review
-
udar5527 September 2009
-
ctomvelu111 October 2010Absolutely 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.
-
kcdude2128 September 2009First, this is not a remake of the original movie. This is a completely different movie which follows the original short story. One of the only things I didn't like about the first Children of the Corn movie, was that it took it's own path and decided to have a happy ending. It's nice to have a movie that follows the short, which is why I gave a 3 instead of a 2.
The acting is absolutely horrid. Anyon who could actually give this movie a rating of higher than 4, probably was a member of the cast or crew. Kandyse McClure's acting was so bad, that I wanted to jump through my screen and smack her myself. Neither of the two main characters are likable, and I wanted them both to die, so that I didn't have to hear them carry on any longer. I honestly would have stopped watching the movie but, I was hoping for the scene in the first one, where the children kill the adults in the diner. I remember the one kid locking the diner door before the killing starts. Sorry, but that scene isn't here.
This film didn't scare me at all. There wasn't a single scene that was worth watching the entire movie, just to see it. Bad acting and bad directing equals a really bad movie. 5 to 10 minutes into the movie, you'll want to turn it off. Go with that instinct, if you have decided to watch it even after my warning. -
alexcomputerkid19 August 2013Of all the Stephen King books and films, I find the movie Children of the Corn to be about the most interesting. As a fan of horror movies, I think films with children as villains seem to work for me. Poltergeist and Insidious are two quality horror movies that involve children and families. Village of the Damned was another and this spawned others. Children of the Corn is one of the most interesting of these films because of it's originality, atmosphere and it involved many kids, not just one. This series had some sequels with the first one coming out in 1984 with mixed reviews. The most recent in the series was a remake on the Syfy Channel in 2009 eight years after the last one.
This remake uses most of all all the same ideas of the original including corn fields in Nebraska and kids with religious views who have killed their parents and looking to strike again. This time the victims are an argumentative couple who were on their way to a honeymoon trip in California.
As a creepy kid film, it is very important that there are good performances from the child actors. Here, I was disappointed in the child characters. Other than the Isaac character (Preston Bailey) just about every kid plays their part like extras. At the same time, these characters are not creepy and don't work well as villains.
Even though you could pick at it a little and get maybe something, there isn't much of a plot here. I do like the leads of David Anders and Kandyse McClure but they aren't given much to do and they really mope around a lot. There are some interesting sets here but the kill scenes are not particularly good. There are some beneath the surface ideas that do come into play here. and these include the idea of race, spiritual aspects of the corn and religious overtones throughout.
Of course you can't take any of this story too seriously, but obviously there is no way something like this could happen in our country with our government. A town full of killer kids and young pregnant girls would be responded to quickly by the police and military and would be a CNN headliner for weeks. A minor flaw maybe but still hard to overlook.
I found Children of the Corn to be disappointing and a movie with an hour and half plot that ran too long at two hours. This is a TV film that feels like a tornado stringing things and ideas around with no purpose and really just wasting our time. -
juliankennedy236 October 2009Children 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 King’s 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 didn’t 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 the monster never shows up at the end.
It isn’t like the original Children of the Corn was Casablanca or something but good lord this is an embarrassment for all involved. -
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. -
ersinkdotcom14 October 2009I don't know why, but I was really hoping for more from the SyFy original remake of Children of the Corn. I was let down. Maybe it was Kandyse McClure from Battlestar Galactica that gave me the false hope. After all, she was in one of the best sci-fi television shows to have hit the small screen. I'm sure for others that unfortunately wasted their time watching this, it was David Anders of Alias, Heroes, and 24 fame that reeled them in to this. Either way, I'm sure they will identify with me when I say that I'll never get that two hours of my life back.
There's really nothing good to say about this movie. Nothing. It is completely devoid of anything even remotely cool or redeemable. A whole lot of nothing happens in situations where something should have. Basically it's two people driving around looking for someone and then they run into weird kids that attack them in the name of some weird deity they worship that they seem to think is God.
I mean, the main characters are so nasty and completely unlikable that you might actually find yourself hoping that the kids would kill them as quickly as possible to get this thing over with. All McClure and Anders do the entire time is bicker about what to do and why the other one is to blame for their crappy marriage. The "children of the corn" are even pretty boring. Their clothes look like they've been freshly washed in Tide with Bleach and then hung up and pressed in wardrobe for the shoot. They just stand outside windows and in alleyways and stare at you. The little kid, Isaac, that leads them is lame. You just want to put him over your knee and spank him silly. And poor Malachi. He's literally just a puppet to a little brat 11-year old that tells him what to do.
I wish I could tell you that maybe the scenes of gore at least justified watching this. Well, there really were none. At least not until the end. The hanging scarecrow people were definitely creepy. That's about it. The rest is just stuff that maybe non-genre fans would think was gory.
I'm also still trying to figure out what the point of setting this in 1975 was. I know the original short story came out in 1977, but come on. For some bizarre reason, the entire movie takes place in 1975. Anders' character is a Viet Nam vet, who, of course is having illusions of still being in the war. They especially happen when he's in the cornfields because they look just like Viet Nam. Wow - how original.
This recently came out on DVD in an uncut version and I wish I could believe that it might help the movie. I don't believe it, though. I don't think that even added gore or something of that nature could save this thing from being a bore. This is the perfect example of a great 27-page story being stretched (like inquisition-style) out to make a very dragging and uneventful 90-minute movie. -
soadchyk25 June 2011Everybody only seems to talk bad about the female lead actor/actress and IMO she was not the only bad actor in this crap they call a film. All the actors in this....whatever--were just.plain.HORRIBLE. OMG the movie was so poorly acted, the kids looked neither creepy nor scary they looked more like some bad teenagers from some 80s movie about kids having a Rad summer or whatever. Goodness grief who wrote the script? Everything about this movie was just awful. I turned away 15 into the film. I watched this again thinking maybe i should give this movie a chance. What was i thinking? Ugh. I wish I could give this movie so many negative stars because that is exactly what this piece of blah deserves.
-
MJDMLQ9 January 2015This movie just fell flat. Although, it does resemble the Stephen King short story more than the 1984 original, especially the ending, it is not it's equal in overall quality and creepiness. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton put in Oscar worthy performances when compared to their counterparts here. The couple in this film have no on screen chemistry whatsoever, even for playing a couple with marital problems.
The real difference between this film and the 1984 original, however, is with the children themselves. Courtney Gains and John Franklin became the gold standard for creepiness under the age of 18 when the original was released. Their mere presence on screen was enough to disturb, even before a word of old testament chanting was uttered. The children in this film are, in comparison, about as scary as parakeet. They invoke no sense of dread and look completely harmless.
Perhaps the problem with this film, as well as the 1984 version, is that it is based on a short story. The tale is one of Stephen King's most disturbing and horrific. The images stay with the reader long after the short story is completed. However, there simply is not enough material to support a feature film. To get to the length of an average film, the 1984 original and this version added quite a bit of material which, honestly, watered down the original source material. The story would be better served in an anthology based film such as "Creepshow" or "Tales From the Darkside," where the source material could be given it's just due without a bunch of fluff used to lengthen the story to an hour and a half. -
Geneticks1127 September 2009I happen to like a lot of Stephen King's work, even though almost everything he does needs to be put on the treadmill for a year. But 20 minutes into this I was cursing myself out loud for actually sitting and watching. I don't know how much King had to do with this screenplay. But somebody ought to get his ass sued.
The script is a mail-it-in, whack-you-in-the-face mediocrity that makes you wonder what clueless desk jockey actually OK'd payment for it. The performances range from bland to the teeth-grindingly awful. The director probably should take a major hit too, with the caveat that the first two handicaps have effectively sent him into battle with a water pistol.
Speaking of battles – can somebody please pass a law forbidding the use of the traumatized Vietnam vet as a cinematic device? King resorts to this one a lot, usually when he wants a character with an unpredictable edge. But by now it is limp, it is exceedingly tired, it is as much of a cliché as John Rambo. It is also more than a little insulting to the vets who actually trod the battlefields of Southeast Asia. Please – take it out back and have it shot.
You have to wonder what was going on when Kandyse McClure, as the vet's wife, began shooting her first Corn scenes. Was it then the director got those first, sinking premonitions of disaster? Did he even try to inject a little, well, direction into the proceedings? Because hers is one of the stunningly bad performances, even by SyFy standards. McClure apparently never thought of attempting a little variety in her readings. What we get is a single-note, one-pitch whine that after five minutes feels like a screwdriver in your ear. I'd love to know if anybody actually tried to get her to modulate once every scene or so. But no, forget any change-ups. She keeps on pumping her junior high fastball until you're swearing at the flat-screen. Wasn't anybody awake when she was filming? I haven't seen Ms. McClure in anything else, and maybe everybody just wrote this off and went for the quickie paycheck once they realized what a mess was in the making. But if this is a representative sample of McClure's talents, she ought to thank God for those limpid eyes and cute booty. Because otherwise she'd probably be dumping fries in the deep fat, back wherever she came from.
As the post-Vietnam husband, David Anders at least lowers his voice occasionally. But this erstwhile jungle fighter loses credibility when, hunted through the corn by the demonic children, he blunders around with all the stealth of a tractor with a flat. Throw in the out-loud conversations he conducts with himself, and you could hear the guy from Mars. I want to see this man's DD-214.
The children are dull, unbelievable, and anything but scary. Some of the sets are nice, especially inside the church. I actually thought the "fertilization" scene on the altar was mildly creepy, with the manic, orgasmic reaction shots from the little kids looking on. But on the whole, as with so many of King's works that get transferred to the screen, this whole thing is grade A turkey.
There is one amusing moment. Anders stumbles on Vickie's (his wife) crucified body in the middle of the field, and falls to his knees in anguish. Not funny, you protest? Laughably unbelievable, I reply. Because, given what we've seen of Vickie, any normal man would have been the first one in line to plant corncobs in her head. -
Tsavo27 September 2009For a Syfy Original, I actually have to rate this rather highly. In my life have have seen some terrible terrible films (Bloodrayne anyone?), and this I most certainly would not count among them. Based on a short story by Steven king, and closer to the original story, this film focuses on an a husband and wife who have a rather... estranged relationship, who are moving to a new place in an attempt to sort out their marital issues. Along the way they get into an argument while the husband is driving, and accidentally hit a boy who stumbles out into the road, holding his throat, leading them into a situation where something is most certainly rotten in the state of Denmark, and by the time they begin to realize what is going on around them, it may already be too late. Now this is not a perfect film by any means, so don't watch it expecting emmys, there are moments when the dialogue could indeed have been done better, but it is not so low as to make it unwatchable, and the bickering between the husband and wife does seem a bit much at times, though its nothing that doesn't actually happen in the real world. But the acting quality was surprising, especially on behalf of the children, I was impressed. All in all, I would recommend watching it at least ONCE. This is one of those movies that either you like, or you don't, but I can guarantee you its not the "worst movie EVER made, as some of you will read other stating, (there's always at least one), so please ignore the naysayers and take a look for yourself. Overall, I was pleased, though I felt a little let down at points, and really pleased at others. I give it an 8 out of ten In part for the camera work, effectiveness of shots and music, and for not actually being the usual Syfy letdown, it is a little higher than I would normally rate it, but the movie needs a boost.
-
DaksGirl27 January 2011OK, let's be honest. This is not a film that is going to win lots of awards. It's relatively low budget, acting could be better, flimsy story line etc etc. But what do you expect? ALL Stephen King adaptations tend to fall short of their expectations. I'm not ashamed to say I like this film. My whole gripe with the original COTC was it didn't stick to the original short story at all, it had a happy ending and the acting sucked. This film at least overcomes the first two! I did actually think the actor who played Burt did him very well; and the kids were genuinely creepy. Everything felt real to me, like this could actually happen which is one thing I look for in good horror films. Is it better than the original film? A million times yes. If you want an answer to "should I watch this?" the answer is also yes. It's entertaining, very close to the short story, good atmosphere and is overall a nice creepy film. It's by no means amazing, but I'm judging it compared to the original, and it does feel like a completely different film. So give it a chance. You'll definitely look at gingers differently after watching it! :P
-
davidsmama6929 July 2013This movie is very special. So special actually, I created an account just to review it and hopefully save at least one poor soul from wasting an hour and a half of their lives that they can never...EVER...get back. The movie consists of a married couple who fight and bicker so much that you actually hope they will die. The acting is horrid, so on top of hearing two people fight non-stop, its not even believable. I read that casting was only two weeks prior to production...and it shows. The children aren't scary, creepy, or anything really. They're just kind of silly. The storyline lacks any depth at all, and you find yourself praying for "the good part" but it never comes. I wasn't expecting much from a made for TV SyFy movie, but this movie didn't even live up to my very low expectations. Plain & simple, don't waste your time.
-
Fella_shibby9 May 2021He 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. -
alisoncolegrooveq13 December 2010Anyone who would suggest this version of Children of The Corn is in any way superior to the original 1984 adaptation is completely out of their freakin' mind!!
This is 'MOVIES' we're talking about here...not a 'MOST FAITHFUL STEPHEN KING ADAPTATIONS COMPETITION'. Films have to be entertaining and dramatic. Like Kubrick's Shining, the choices made in the earlier adaptation were obviously smart and effective (not designed to please the author, but to please AUDIENCES)...but here..oh dear
The script, acting and execution of this Children of the Corn 2010 version is probably one of the most embarrassing train wrecks, even for modest budget horror I've had the displeasure of sitting through in many years.
Kandyse McClure's performance is particularly noteworthy as embarrassingly hysterical and silly. Watching two actors work you can always tell when someones out of their depth watching their eyes as the other actor delivers lines. When she's not shrieking every line, there's nobody home at all. David Anders does a pretty OK job and he's obviously in another league to Ms McClure..but he has some genuinely awful script to wade through also.
The eponymous 'children' are all limp and ineffective showroom dummies who seem to be rehearsing their lines...not even the vaguest hint of sinister! They don't even make believable religious fanatical drones! You know a horror film is failing dismally when you don't even get a hint of satisfaction when the irritating lead characters get their well deserved end! Avoid this like the plague...its not BAD FUNNY, its just really BAD. -
movietelevision27 September 2009If you hated the original, yo'll hate this. If you liked the original, you still probably won't like it. In my eyes, it was good enough to make 5 stars instead of 4, which isn't a huge achievement.
The worst thing about this film I'd say is is the acting. In the original, Malachi and Isaac were scary, believable scary and intimidating. Isaac is like, absolutely a terrible actor. He wasn't scary at all - it was as if he was just reading from the script for the first time. Terrible. Also, Vicki and Burt were likable in the original, now you really couldn't care if they die or not.
I feel bad for Alexa Nickolas! She had to carry a terrible cast - and I hope for her career's sake they don't associate this only film to her acting career. She deserved more on screen time because she was the only really good actor in this film. Even when the little kids die, you really don't feel bad because they are not likable characters - no one in this film is a likable character.
Overall, I give this a film a 5/10. It wasn't the worst film, but in no way was it the best. It had its moments and was a little enjoyable, but chances are I won't watch it again. -
BRIAN3146228 September 2009This has got to be one of the worst remakes I have ever seen. I had thought that with the two leads in the show, the acting would at least be plausible. David had done some very good work in the past including the spots on Heroes and Kandyse was very good in BSG. But either the writers, directors or the actors themselves seem to have forgotten how to do the job they were hired for. Also some very bad mistakes were made as far as continuity. The shotgun David (Burt) carries into the field the first time is plugged as can be seen in a couple of shots. And the ditch along the corn field where he enters the first time, is completely native growth originally and then is mowed in the next shot. I for one am no fan of remakes of the originals and this attempt is the perfect reason.
-
aminjacoub29 June 2011I remember the Children Of The Corn movie from 1984, and as an big admirer of Stephen Kings work, I was somehow pleased even in not so great movie, of the overall impression watching it. I did not read the book, but it was another OK movie that lay in my movie collection. While we had there fine acting from actors, good atmosphere and rhythm, and the most important thing scary feeling of children there, in this crap which is a true shame to be called adaptation of Stephen King work we have nothing but low level entertainment. Not scary at all, terrible acting, everything so amateurish that hurts my stomach.
Some effects that was used to create scary atmosphere failed, using part of the music from first movie to create tension of it, nothing helped here.
I really don't know how it is possible to show that kind of junk to audience that admire good horror movie, especially for those that also like master King.
It is a shame. The 0 is even too much for this, so called movie. I have no motivation to describe more of it, just to express total disappointment. -
trick_morr30 August 2013I 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. -
michaelleelewis197825 September 2018Absolutely horrendous, the couple are completely unlikable, you actual want them to get murdered, and the acting is almost laughable, stick to the original.
-
Stephen King wrote this adaptation with David Borchers; unlike the original Children of the Corn film in 1984, the screenplay of which was written by George Goldsmith and BASED on King's story. If people find Vicky obnoxious, it is because King and Borchers exaggerated the descriptions of the characters from the story. As well as gave them a greater context. In the story, they are a bickering couple who aren't sure if they are in love anymore. This is what the movie presents. Also there is the fact that for the most part, Vicky is loud because she is scared out of her mind. I would be too if I was completely spooked and my husband ignored my protests and questions (my begging to just LEAVE), leaving me in the car completely defenseless (without the car keys), while he goes to check it out and be macho. But this, in my opinion, stays true to the story. I'm just saying, back off of Vicky. I also don't think her being black has any connotations except that maybe they wanted to NOT be racist -- and figured it would give the characters even more dimension, being an interracial marriage in the 1970s. And the actress is really hot. Plus they give Burt more context with a Vietnam marine background and in a chase scene he has war flashbacks. While this was not in the original story, this is SOOOO King's style. Beautifully done. Not to mention that it gives a really interesting view of the children's religion, with scenes that I feel could have come right out of the original story. This is one of the most accurate adaptations I have ever seen, despite being a made-for-TV movie.
-
Hey_Sweden3 October 2017The second (small) screen version of Stephen Kings' short story stars David Anders and Kandyse McClure as the couple Burt and Vicky Stanton. Burt & Vicky, whose relationship has turned utterly venomous, are travelling cross country. On their way through Nebraska, they run down a child in the road - only for Burt to realize that the kid was basically dead before they hit him; his throat was slashed. Making it to the nearby tiny town of Gatlin, they are soon confronting the towns' children, who have turned murderous and now pray to a different sort of God named "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".
This version is scripted by King himself and director Donald P. Borchers, who'd produced the 1984 feature film. Unlike the original, "Children of the Corn" '09 is scrupulously faithful to the story. (Not that being faithful is always necessarily a good thing.) Burt and Vicky are NOT getting along to begin with, so their current situation only makes things worse. Problem with this is that you'll probably find it hard to care about this idiot couple. He comes off slightly better, but only because he's more low key and isn't nearly as insufferable as she is. He's still a stubborn dummy, of course, and their inability to get the Hell out of Dodge before the excrement hits the fan merely serves to seal their fate.
One new wrinkle this time is to make Burt & Vicky an inter-racial couple, not that it actually adds anything to the story. That element is just sort of there. The King / Borchers teleplay also goes awfully heavy on the 'Nam parallels, making Burt a veteran who ends up flashing back to his time in the service. There's also some good old fashioned sex to spice things up a little.
The original film may have been laughable, and ultimately cheesy, but at least it had more personality, and was more entertaining, than this. It's not good when you can't bring yourself to root for the protagonists. Anders and McClure do whatever they're capable of with these roles, but they're easily outshone by Daniel Newman, as Malachai, and Preston Bailey, as the intense boy preacher Issac. Still, these two kids aren't going to stick in your memory the way that Courtney Gains and John Franklin do.
One worthy component is the music by Jonathan Elias (who scored the '84 film) and Nathaniel Morgan. Robert Kurtzman supplies the decent enough gore.
This viewer didn't hate this adaptation nearly as much as some people, but will concede that the '84 film shows people a generally better time, despite its utterly goofy, upbeat ending.
If you stick it out to the bitter end, there IS a final scene following the end credits.
Six out of 10. -
danmelder12 May 2021Just watch the original of this film. Trust me. Awful in every sense. The "preacher boy" was like a kid reading a script in a rubbish school play. The rest of the acting was truly terrible. Leading lady was irritating from start to finish.
-
pat_loonytoon27 September 2009So I just watched the original a few nights ago when I saw on here that this new one was coming out. So they killed all the ones who shouldn't have died and kept alive those who should have died. The story is totally void of life as two main good kids in the older film were cut and so all the kids just feel like drones...minus the one with the slit neck that never seem to be explained.
One thing that seemed to be lacking is any bit of kindness from anyone...which although sounding like a good idea for a horror film it really turned out to make the plot bland. It's sad that this wasn't more thought out and not butchered. Go ahead and see this movie if you don't mind a mediocre script, squirting bloody child necks, and just a generally not very good movie. -
TheLittleSongbird26 July 2012I happen to like Stephen King's writing, they are atmospheric and often harrowing with an unparallelled way of describing and portraying fear(It is testament to this). I was dubious however seeing as it was SyFy, but seeing as it had good if not great source material to work from it showed some promise. This was worse than I was expecting, it is a contender for not just the most disappointing of SyFy's resume but it also is a contender for the worst Stephen King adaptation ever. The visuals have been worse before and since(a phrase I have used before a number of times recently as believe it or not there are a few tolerable efforts in the sea of horrible), but the choppy editing and dull effects don't make it an atmospheric or appealing film to watch. The lighting is also used in a way that has been done many times before and better. The script is horribly clunky, with nothing coming across as natural or meaningful, and the story isn't just flimsy, literally nothing of interest happens with no sense of terror, no suspense and no real heart either. The characters have no likable personalities and are badly underdeveloped, while the acting is terrible, especially from a painfully dull and melodramatic Kandyse McClure though a lot of the main cast are bland and the children are robotic. In conclusion, a waste of time, the original movie and King's story are not exactly masterpieces of their respective forms but they are much more worthwhile than this irredeemable turd. 1/10 Bethany Cox