Who payed the critics

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

I actually enjoyed this remake. 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. The original is awesome but hardly follows the SS. This stays true and you will notice the similarities if you have read it.I think the acting is wonderful. The boy who plays Isaac is creepy and adorable at the same time. I believe Malachai is better this time around than the first. He seems a little more darker and more intimidating. Burt and Vicki player by David and Kandyse do a great job as a couple who are having problems. Their acting is believe able and nothing tacky.Being a big fan of COTC, I think this should not be looked over. It is way better than some of the sequels.

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. Quite frankly, I don't really care, since I never liked the aforementioned original and – do I daresay it – even think Stephen King is a rather overrated horror icon. In spite of all the macabre potential and numerous opportunities (the isolated setting, evil children, etc) it seems impossible to make a half-decent movie out of the COTC-concept. This made-for-TV version is even downright embarrassing, as it brings forth the utmost intolerable lead characters, the most excruciatingly painful dialogs to listen to and the most unimaginably retarded sub plots and story twists. Allegedly this version is more faithful to King's short story, and if that is indeed the case it only means further proof that the original short story was garbage to begin with. Allow me to expand a little on each of the main defaults. The intolerable lead characters: in the right corner, we have the non-stop arguing married "couple" Vicky and Burt. They're not just quarreling, in fact, they truly hate each other! She obviously has an aversion towards men in general and ought to consider becoming a lesbian, and he's too obviously in love with his former Vietnam buddies. Their constant fights and disrespect literally forces the viewer to wish them dead. In the left corner, the weak depiction of the town's main freaks Isaac and Malachai. Two of the few strengths of the 1984 version were the effectively menacing portrayals by John Franklin (as Isaac) and Courtney Gains (as Malachai). In the 2009 version, they're just pitiable brats. The painful dialogs: I definitely concur with one of my fellow reviewers who aptly states: "kids shouldn't be given lines they themselves don't even understand". Too true, Isaac and another little blond kid clearly don't know what they're talking about and it all comes out wrong and artificial. The retarded sub plots and story twists: too many to choose from, actually, but my "favorite" remains Burt's nightly Vietnam-flashbacks in the cornfields! Can you imagine, whilst on the run for a horde of diabolical children and just having lost his wife, this guy suffers from visions of Charlie his buddies bleeding to death in the jungle! How freaking stupid can a movie be? I'm not even going to elaborate on how implausible and impossible the rest of the script is, but you get the idea. In my ultimate attempt to discourage anyone from watching this junk, I'll also add that there aren't any brutal killings, grisly images or shocking content. Figures, it's a dumb TV-movie full of darned kiddies!

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. 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.