User Reviews

First, 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.

Children of the Corn (2009): 1 out of 10: Good lord did they screw this movie up. First, the writer (George Goldsmith) who adapted the original Children of the Corn is some sort of savant. Apparently all the good scenes in the original movie (The killing of the adults, Isaac and Malachi going at it in the climax, were his invention.) This movie cut all that good stuff out and replaced it with the Viet Cong and public child sex.

The blame rests squarely on Mr. Stephen 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.

I 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.

This 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.

I 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.

If 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.

This 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.

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.

I liked Kandyse McClure in Battlestar Galactica, but her character here is obnoxious, at best. Her husband is worse, being stupid as well as obnoxious. I have't read the Stephen King short story yet, so I can't comment on this made for TV version being true to his short story. Stephen Kings works have a long history of being poorly adapted to television and movies, with few exceptions, such as "The Stand". That held together well almost to the end, which was typically horrid. Again, I haven't read that particular Stephen King work yet, but I hope it has a better ending that the TV mini-series did. Even Stephen King's being directly involved doesn't solve this frequently recurring problem.

I actually like Stephen Kings writings very much, I've read many of his novels, just not many of his short stories. He may be one of my favorite authors. But for some reason, his works don't translate well into visual media. Vicki Stanton has the right idea that something is wrong and they need to leave that town as soon as possible, but her meat head husband has some unexplained obsession with finding out where everyone is, or what happened to them. He's oblivious to the fact that something capable of wiping out a whole town would erase the two of them with ease.

Vicki's death at least stops her harpy shrieking, and Burt's death seems almost as justified ending to his bizarre stubborn stupidity. I'm guessing it might be somehow tied to his having post traumatic stress disorder due to his time in Vietnam. There's plenty on screen to explain that as the cause of his actions, but not how that makes his actions seem reasonable to him.

The basic plot is a rehash of "Logan's Run" with a religious fanaticism overlay and a few less years to live by the book, several years less by the movie. The children's society fell apart accordingly due to the insufficient time to pass on the knowledge required for an advanced, functional society. The children are distractingly clean, while the town is appropriately dilapidated. All the children have time to learn is how to grow corn, & apparently make decent, unbelievably clean clothing. No reason for this incongruity is given. 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. Most likely it would be a high definition crudely animated version of part of his Dark Tower series. As far as I know, that hasn't been bastardized yet on film or video.