This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This was the last "Children Of The Corn" movie to be released in theaters. Professional movie critics are certainly glad, although there are some who review direct to video stuff. Anyway, the original at least had Isaac in an entertainingly stupid role, but this really has nothing. I think the only decent actor is the Native American guy. The plot is that the kids are killing the adults again and sacrificing people. Yeah, pointless as that's what happened in the first movie.This woman mentions that her husband disappeared 15 years ago and that's why she's moving. Why didn't she move 15 years ago? As far as I know, Stephen King isn't a critic of religion, but this did come off as anti-religious. We get stupid ways for people to die like an old lady who crashes through a window after being hit by a car. It's as silly as it sounds. There's just nothing new and it's a shame this series went on forever. *1/2

"Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" follows a reporter and his estranged son from New York who are traveling through Nebraska in the aftermath of the first film's events; naturally, he wants a story. The price? Perhaps his life.The original "Children of the Corn" installment is not what I'd call high art exactly, but it is a fairly well-put-together horror film from a rather disreputable company (New World). This film picks up immediately where the first leaves off, shifting to new characters. Cue mysterious children, a "normal" girl-next-door love interest for the teenaged boy, and a few outrageous and violent death scenes (including one grand guignol scene in a church ceremony). "Children of the Corn II" is at its core a fairly unoriginal film, but worse, it's actually quite dull and aimless. The script takes a hard right turn in the final act with a rather absurd ecological explanation for the events taking place, which itself is wrapped up in commentary on indigenous peoples and European settlers. The problem is that none of these things really seem to cohere as the film clunks toward its finale. Terence Knox seems bored, as does most of the cast here, and there is a fair amount of soap-opera acting throughout. It's not entirely bad, though—I do think genre fans will find some amusement here with the death scenes and early-nineties stylistics. As a time capsule and a kitschy slasher oddity, it's amusing; as a sequel, it's unexciting, and dare I say anticlimactic. Oddly enough, I may prefer the successive sequels that followed it. 4/10.

"Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" is pretty much an okay sequel, staying in sync with the events that happened in the town of Gatlin 8 years earlier, but I'm not sure if I can actually call it better than the original. It's a bit difficult to compare the two movies, since the original definitely wasn't aiming for gore or spectacular kills. The first "CotC" tried to build a bit of mystery and played it a little more creepier. Sure, by today's standards that might very well translate to 'a little more goofier'. But truthfully, upon re-watching "CotC II", I couldn't help noticing it also has its fair share of (unintended) goofy moments. Like the two old sister characters, whose deaths are more funny than terrifying, really (one gets crushed by a house on pillars, the other gets catapulted with her wheelchair into a room full of Bingo-players). And where did that Indian mumbo-jumbo explanation all of the sudden come from? Christie Clark was an enormously cute teen-babe at the time; just thought I'd mention that.After this first sequel, 4 others followed each other rapidly throughout the '90s, so "CotC II" is much more responsible for starting up the whole franchise than the original was. And all sequels are pretty much on par with what all other sequels from other franchises were being cranked out those days (the '90s installments of the "Amytiville" series, for example). Hardly great horror movies, but they always managed to entertain me, trying to come up with some original & amusing kills time after time or desperately hoping to bring a new twist to tired concepts.Noteworthy is that Bob Keen & Gary J. Tunnicliffe did the special effects on "CotC II". But then again, it's not exactly their most impressive work ever. At any rate, I did have fun re-watching "CotC II". I like the musical score by Daniel Licht also. He's a talented composer, though people hardly seem to know which (horror) movies he was involved with.

Stephen King's "Children of the Corn" story is relatively short so most of what is in the movies has nothing to do with his story. This is the last of the movies I saw, but many more sequels would for some reason follow. The first movie did have some elements that were found in the book, this one only a few concepts remain as it does a lot of things differently this time around. For one, you do not get the creepy abandoned looking town you found in the first movie, which is a shame as it is what made that film for me. You also do not have really much of anything as far as development goes as this film is for the most part very forgettable. The story centers around what are supposedly survivors from the town in the last movie and for some reason it seems the corn is infecting them in ways that once again make them into bad children, or bad teenagers for the most part. Yes, I would have to say all these movies would be more aptly titled teenagers of the corn rather than children, though I can guess they do it so they do not traumatize a really young kid.