Children of the Corn

Plot synopsis:
In an attempt to save their failing marriage, Burt and Vicky, a bickering couple, are driving to California for vacation. As they drive through rural Nebraska, they accidentally run over a young boy who ran onto the road. Upon examination of the body, Burt discovers the boy's throat had been slit and he was bleeding to death before he was hit. After opening the boy's suitcase, they find a strange-looking crucifix made of twisted corn husks. Knowing they will have to report this to the authorities, they place the body in their car's trunk. After arguing over where to take the body, Burt decides to go to Gatlin, a small, isolated community which is right down the road. Vicky wants to take the body to Grand Island (which is 70 miles away), but Burt argues that it would not be a good idea to take the body so far away.
When they finally arrive in Gatlin, it appears to be a ghost town. As they explore the town and visit a gas station and an empty lunchroom, the couple notice that many things about the town are out-of-date, such as gas prices and calendar dates. Vicky starts to get a bad feeling about the town and wants to leave, but Burt insists that they keep going until they find the police station. When they finally reach the center of town, they find no one there either.
Burt then sees a church with a recent date on the sign out front. In stark contrast with the rest of Gatlin—which has been neglected for years—the church is reverently cared for. After telling Vicky he's going to have a look inside, they get into another argument. After Vicky threatens to drive off and leave him stranded in Gatlin, Burt grabs her purse, and takes out her car keys. Vicky, on the verge of hysteria, begs him to leave Gatlin and find another place to call the police. He ignores her and walks away.
Inside, Burt finds that someone has torn the lettering off the walls and created a strange mosaic of Jesus behind the altar, as well as ripping out the keys and stops of the pipe organ and stuffing its pipes full of corn husks. At the altar, Burt finds a King James Bible (with several pages from the New Testament cut out), and a ledger where names have been recorded, along with birth and death dates. While reading the ledger, he notices that twelve years ago all names were changed from modern to Biblical ones, and that everyone listed as deceased died on their 19th birthday. Burt comes to the horrifying realization that twelve years ago the children of Gatlin killed the town's adults and that members of their community are sacrificed on their 19th birthday.
After hearing Vicky sound the car's horn, Burt runs from the church to find that a gang of children dressed in Amish-style clothing and armed with farm tools have surrounded the car. Vicky tries to fight back, but the children drag her out of the car and slash holes in all of the tires. Burt tries to intervene, but one of the children (a teenaged boy with red hair) throws a kitchen knife at him, stabbing Burt in the arm. The teenager then attempts to claw Burt's eyes, but he pulls the knife out of his arm and stabs the teenager in the throat, killing him. The children step back in shock. Burt then realizes that Vicky is gone. When he asks where she is, one of the children holds up a knife and makes a slashing motion.
Burt then is chased into an alley. Managing to outrun them, Burt ducks into the corn field and hides while his attackers search for him. He notices several odd things: there are no animals or weeds anywhere in the cornfield, and that every stalk of corn is free of any blemishes. As the sun begins to go down, Burt becomes lost and wanders around until he stumbles onto a circle of empty ground in the middle of the cornfield. There he discovers Vicky's dead body. She has been tied to a cross with barbed wire, with her eyes ripped out, and her mouth stuffed with corn husks. Gatlin's previous minister and police chief, who are now skeletons, have also been crucified. As Burt starts to flee, he notices that every row in the cornfield has closed up, preventing him from escaping. Burt soon realizes that something is coming for him. Before he can do anything, he is killed by a giant red-eyed monster that comes out of the cornfield. Shortly thereafter, a harvest moon appears in the sky.
The next day, the children of Gatlin (all members of a cult that worships "He Who Walks Behind the Rows", a wrathful deity that inhabits the cornfields that surround the town) meet where Burt and Vicky were slain. Isaac, their nine year old leader, tells them that He Who Walks Behind the Rows is displeased with their failure to kill Burt, an act that the deity was forced to commit on its own, as it did with the former minister and police chief. As punishment for their failure He Who Walks Behind the Rows commands that the age limit be lowered to eighteen years old.
As night falls, Malachi (the killer of the boy that Burt and Vicky ran over) and all of the other eighteen-year-olds walk into the cornfield to sacrifice themselves to He Who Walks Behind the Rows. Malachi's pregnant girlfriend, Ruth, waves goodbye to him and begins to weep. It is revealed that she has a secret hatred for He Who Walks Behind the Rows and dreams of setting the cornfield on fire, but is afraid to actually do so because He Who Walks Behind the Rows can see everything, including the motives inside human hearts. The story ends with the simple statement that the corn surrounding Gatlin is pleased.

Tags: violence, murder

Review:
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.
Of 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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone 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'.
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 dearThe 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.
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.
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.
Everything felt real to me, like this could actually happen which is one thing I look for in good horror films.
There are many things that backfire in this movie from the miscasting to the changes to keep in line with the original story and none of them work for the better.
I 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.
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.
I'm not entirely sure whether this thing is supposed to be a remake of the 1984 film or simply just another adaptation of the same short story by Stephen King.
I found nothing sympathetic in either character and just wanted them gone, unlike the original film where I liked and cared for the two leads.
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.
I love the genre and am a Stephen King fan however my cat has coughed up more impressive things than this movie.Listening to the children was akin to listening to a recitation of the times tables, providing the dialogue could actually be understood.Some of the special effects were OK and I enjoyed the corn.
This SyFy remake at least tries to keep itself faithful to the original short story by Stephen King.The movie begins with a group of children gathered inside a tent, where a young boy dressed in a kiddie cowboy suit gives a creepy lecture to the rest of the congregation, while a pig is being sacrificed.
The child playing the preacher is not as creepy as the actor that played the same role in the 1984 movie, but I do not subscribe to the notion that is is necessarily a liability - the children may not look like psychopathic killers, but that was the whole point: the kids are not deranged (you will have to see the movie to find out why.) Bottom line, while not as scary as, for instance, The Myst, the movie still holds its own compared with the original 1984 theatrical release, which while enjoying a much bigger budget and special effects, the story itself ends up being increasingly preposterous and lame..
After trying to find a police officer or anyone to report it to, they stumble on the town's secret: no one over a certain age is alive, and children are commanded by a prophet for a pagan harvest god.All I want to say about this film is that it is a weak, pathetic interpretation of the original, and can be disregarded.
I remember reading the original short story and being taken with both the reality of the dialog between the main characters (it was written the way people really speak) and the disturbing effect of the subject matter.
I would accuse the principals of overacting but they weren't given a lot to work with.Unlike the original movie, this adaption did stick close enough to the story satisfy most King fans and to catch some of the uneasiness the story evoked.
The second (small) screen version of Stephen Kings' short story stars David Anders and Kandyse McClure as the couple Burt and Vicky Stanton.
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.
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.
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..
On a road trip through rural Nebraska, a divorcing couple find an abandoned town to be the home of a cult of children worshiping a bizarre figure that lives in their cornfields and must find a way of stopping the kids from turning them into their next sacrifice.This is a pretty troubling if somewhat watchable effort.
It's really not that much of a remake of the original, it's like a completely different movie.
To clear up any confusion (well, mostly just for myself I guess) there is only one remake - and here I am reviewing it.The classic 1984 version of Children of the Corn is based off a short story written by Stephen King.
I never wanted to ponder on this topic too long though because underneath it all, Children of the Corn is still a horror movie, and the 1984 film captures this wonderfully.
It's probably worth mentioning that the child actor who played the role of Isaac was pitiful and I hated every second of it...it almost reminded me of Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest, a WRETCHED film that annoyingly watches your every move only to weasel its way back into the dark recess it crawled from never to be heard of again, eventually surfacing once more on the seedy side of Frank's discount movie bin.
The movie is really far from exciting to watch, especially as an horror.It seemed like a good idea to modernize the story more, for the 21th century, with todays style of film-making.
Next time they should however put someone in charge who seems to know what he or she is doing and can make a decent film, out of a potentially decent concept.Strangely enough you're far better off watching the 1984 version of the Stephen King short story, or any of its many sequels for that matter.3/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
Originally a short story by Stephen King, the CHILDREN OF THE CORN concept has produced a veritable goldmine for Hollywood producers over the years, ever since the 1984 film adaptation proved a smash hit and the inevitable sequels followed.
Yes, I'm talking about Kandyse McClure's character of Vicky, the protagonist's wife, who shrill and incessant howling every time she appears on screen is enough to make the ears bleed.Still, the rest of the film isn't anything to write home about.
The titular children aren't menacing in the least; one thing I remember from the original film is how creepy the actor playing Isaac was, but the Isaac here is much younger, cuter, and hearing him preach in that soft, whiny little voice is anything but frightening.
Basic plot: the very vivacious Vicky(Kandyse McClure)is sadly married to a dork "Marine" Burton (David Anders), he who acts like he barely passed Cub Scouts, travel to a small town in Nebraska and encounter biblical bigots hiding in the cornfields.I can't believe there aren't more movie with Kandyse in them.
Finally just seen the last of Corn movies.Children of the Corn (2009) This is not one of 3 worst in series, as better then the 5,7 and 8 movie series but this movie is 4 worst in series.I found this movie really entertaining and did stay faithful to main story and like however they did add for new think to remake, which i think worked well with movie.
The acting in this movie decent, for a movie in the corn series, not saying or even good and same goes for movie,even i thought it would be a lot worse (like 8 movies series that just came out in 2011) Isaac When first saw Children of corn(1984) about years ago, I found Isaac voice so annoying that it took me 10 years to re-watch this movie.But in this Isaac (A thing that I thought i Would never say) was even more annoying, it not the voice this, it just not believe at all, it did not the suit roll at all, it just flat for whole movie, he was one of the main probably in this movie and women Kandyse McClure who played Vicki Stanton in this, was really unbearable to watch, all she did for first ten minutes was shout, moan, whine about anything, i felt like turning it off, went shouting none- stop for 3 minutes of movie, even though it felt more like 2 hours and was so clad she got slapped in the face then, I hated her so much..I could not wait for her to get killed and when evil kids found her, I Cheered.
Children of the Corn (2009) ** (out of 4) Remake of the 1984 cult film based on Stephen King's short story.
This time out a fighting couple (David Anders, Kandyse McClure) are driving to California but while going through the corn they hit and kill a young kid.
The debate on remakes will never die but I'm not of the fan of the original film so I thought a reworking of the material might have been a good idea.
The performances by the children were better here than in the original film but I'm sure much debate will follow on the leads.
Here is a review that is about the good stuff, not the bad.The remake is definitely stays faithful to the short story by King.
And as much as I disliked the character changes and the Vietnam story arc, I've got to give them credit for switching things up a bit unlike the remake of Psycho which stuck to the original practically word for word.
I've liked Stephen King's Children of The Corn series since I was a kid and I was very interested when I heard that they were remaking them.
I felt like I was jumping into a movie after missing the first half hour, besides that, the acting was so-so, and overall the film was okay at best.
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.
I don't know why, but I was really hoping for more from the SyFy original remake of Children of the Corn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They realize that, on their way through Gatlin, that there is no life in it besides the kids and that they are in for more than they expected.This was so terrible to me, that I stopped for commentary.Point #1 - Burt and Vicki.For what feels like 2/3s of the movie, all you have is Burt and Vicki bickering and arguing.
I didn't see in detail what the children were eating, but they couldn't survive on corn alone, even if they used nixtamalization to prevent pellagra.If I see enough of these horrible TV and film versions of Stephen King's work, I might just get motivated enough to see if I do as bad a job myself.
In a time like ours, when Hollywood is remaking so many classic horror films that don't need to be remade, I'm impressed by all the recent remakes of Stephen King stories...
Unfortunately, the nearest town is Gatlin, which at first glance seems to be deserted, but the couple realize all too late that something is wrong in this town when the only signs of life appear to be children, and fanatical ones at that.I just watched this film for the second time, and on viewing it again I realize how well the filmmakers did in capturing the sense of building dread present in the original short story.
I seem to be in the minority when it comes to loving the original 1984 film of Stephen King's CHILDREN OF THE CORN.
The film also casts to type- there are actual kids here, not 20-somethings playing teens, and Isaac is only about ten (although he's not as good an actor as original Issac John Franklin).
The acting is alright, the two leads do what's asked of them even if their character's are unlikable.Children of the Corn is a good story & I have to say that I like both the original 1984 adaptation & this 2009 version although I prefer the former, this isn't that bad at all actually & thought it was perfectly watchable & even quite effective at times although maybe it doesn't satisfy completely..
I love the original Children of the Corn, a little campy and perhaps not overly faithful to Stephen King's story but there was a true feeling of disturbing isolation and twisted religious fanaticism the way it was meant to be.
Part of that problem in my opinion is the children in this remake do a good job but don't even hold a candle to the original cast of kids from the first film.
Here the kid looks like he needs a time out and a nap.None of the actors even tried to act, keeping the same facial expressions throughout and this doomed any chance to make this travesty into a so bad its good type of film.I don't blame Stephen King from disowning it and wanting the rights restored.