RidetheWind95 As an enormous fan of the original which was (relative to the modest budget and laughable SFX) well done, as a remake, this version left much to be desired. Surprisingly, this was co- written by Stephen King himself. I'm reflecting comparisons to the original, and thus not meant for first timers. Burt and Vicky constantly bicker. It's obvious they don't like each other, in spite of being married. In the original, they were unmarried and the only ongoing major disagreement they had was about him making a full commitment. Regarding casting, I was confused. Burt being a white ex-marine with signs of PTSD, and Vicky a black woman, too often whiny and obnoxious. The race change made no sense, save for attempting to be more "P.C." which is completely out of place here. I may have missed it but it was unclear to me exactly what they were doing driving in the middle of nowhere, whereas it was briefly explained in the original. The original Isaac was a tough act to follow, but this young "actor" just doesn't fit the bill. There's nothing creepy about him for starters. His lines are rushed and lacking any sense of fear or authority through his inflections. As an actor he didn't seem to have a full understanding of what he was saying! Perhaps not his fault, as his intentions/motivations were seemingly explained poorly to him. The story begins "twelve years ago" (1963) and takes place in "present day" (1975), however Isaac, among others, hadn't aged during this long period. One may recall that in the original the year was ambiguous, mentioning only "present day" and "about three years ago". Much of the music is the same with several minor changes. The ultra eerie child chanting music is there but not nearly as loud or significant. The 1984 film can be a fine example of how score can make or break the overall feel. The Malachai character often overacts, as if he's trying hard to live up to the bizarre nature of the original role played by Courtney Gains. The rest of the children speak in unison so often that it loses its eerie nature after awhile and just seems contrived. One thing I did like was more interaction of the children with each other. They talk, they eat together, etc. These elements left unresolved curiosity in the '84 version. It hardly saves the film, though. The majority of the acting is stale and lifeless. Job and Sara are taken out of this one altogether. Essentially it's Burt against this world. An interesting church scene shows two of the older kids fornicating on the pulpit in front of Isaac and the rest of the kids. Pretty gutsy for made-for-TV to have nudity, sex movements and noises while kids cheered on excitedly. I thought it superfluous to have Burt running from the children through the corn experiencing Vietnam flashbacks. The running alone would have sufficed, especially since it was shot almost to the letter to the description in the short story. The kids stop cold when they get to the foot of the cornfield, obvious that they have a learned fear of entering the corn without the presence of their leaders. Another element that brought this down as a horror film is that these murderous children are just simply too normal. They have more personal dialogue here, but it was too often and too "everyday". With the exception of children acting in unison, holding weapons, and wearing dated clothes, there wasn't much else strikingly unusual. The cinematography was halfway decent. Many shots paid tribute to the original, like the corn "coming alive" around Burt. It's difficult to swallow the relationship between Isaac and Malachai because without Isaac's creepiness there's no intimidation factor. Being that Malachai is a bigger and older presence, it doesn't work. Burt and Vicky's actors have zero screen chemistry. Also because of Vicky's annoying nature, I never cared about what happened to her. The end result of her fate was disturbing to see, not because it was her, but rather because it was anyone. This yarn creates very little sense of much needed chills, fear and scares. It missed that special ingredient that makes great horror. Vicky's scene towards the end was notably disturbing and well done. I at appreciated their staying loyal to the original story. This had potential but just didn't hit the mark. Like many M. Night Shyamalan films, we wait and hope that something big and exciting and grand will happen, but it runs out of gas early. The last 15 minutes is worth watching for true fans.

Billie Jay 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. Actually I think the corn featured as a high point in many of the scenes. The worst part was that I was convinced if I watch it long enough it will be worthwhile. It was not. I was wrong. Don't waste your time.

trick_morr I 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.

pcsarkar I am a horror movie buff. I am also a Stephen King fan, although his verbose, slow-paced novels tend to give me a headache. For a long time, I had been aware that a film called "Children of The Corn" was around. That is all. Stupid of me, that I never researched the movie, did not know that there were several versions floating about. Anywaz, to come back to the present version, we have this bickering couple on a highway in Nebraksa, celebrating their second wedding anniversary. Is the dude is a vet? Doesn't look the part. What was a vet doing in the killing fields of Vietnam, before he landed up in Nebraska? The point is not clear. He has a black wife, who harangues him endlessly. The wife has a cute bod, which she exposes to her advantage, and that's about all. She yells, sobs and sniffles. The dude is an inquisitive sort. He loves to pry about corn fields, ghost towns, deserted churches and whatnot. Sometimes he is scared and carries a shotgun. Sometimes, he is stupidly bold. But at the end, he is pretty ineffectual, despite his Vietnam training, when the children hoist him up like a scarecrow. While the couple are driving in a car, the children manage to follow them pretty easily on foot. Now that's your supernatural connection. These children are juvenile delinquents.. they kill adults as a sort of sacrifice, so that they will get a good harvest of corn. But how their other ends are met is again not clear. The food? The electricity supply? The clothes? The (ahem) candles? Surely a lunatic fringe group cannot exist like this for long, without the local authorities coming to know about it? Apparently, according to Mr King, they can. A sort of Manson cult.. only this time, the cultists are children. Wow!! The film blunders and flounders. There is no monster in the end. Just about everybody is delusional.. the hero, (not the heroine), and the children. A load of biblical references are thrown in.. its a wonder that the church authorities did not sue King for his deliberate misinterpretation of the Bible. A weak, stupid plot cannot be made into a masterpiece of a movie. Here, we have a terrible script, dumb actors and actresses and a dumber premise. So what can one expect? Pure corn.. what else.