The biggest mistake in this movie is that we know why these characters do whatever they do. The children kill adults because Isaac says so. Isaac says so because the demon-thing "He who walks behind the rows" tells him to. The demon tells to because... it's a demon, enough said. Fear is born when we don't know or understand something that's strange to us. That's why so many people think Birds (1963) and The Shining (1980) are very creepy movies. We don't know why the birds attack or why Jack goes crazy, but that is exactly the reason why those movies are so popular. Another flaw in this movie is how it seems so made up-scary. The texts "spill the blood" and "and a child shall lead them" written with _unknown red fluid_ felt a bit unnecessary, just like the dried corn stalks that were everywhere.
It feels like this movie tried to make Vicky and Burt some kind of immortal heroes. In Stephen King's original short story, they end up dying, but here they don't. They just kill off the three bad guys we had and then the movie's just over. And so we get to the next thing I disliked really much in this movie. The ending. In the novel, we know that the children continue sacrificing each other and themselves to He who walks behind the rows, but in this film Burt, as our strong neverdying superhero, comes to preach how every religion with violence as the main point is wrong. Though I agree with that point, as for horror movies, I prefer the ones where the heroes don't survive. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but I think we all can agree on that the ending was super unimpressive. It just leaves the story unfinished. It's almost like they didn't even try. No talking, no music. Just "The End" and nothing else. It raises so many questions that we'll never get answers to.
I think the plot would've been much better if "He who walks behind the rows" was made-up and not an actual being. I've always been more scared by people with just homicidal minds, but never monsters. I'd like the plot better if there never was any bigger force, just Isaac. Or there could've been an adult behind all this because, after all, a 12 year old making up a religion that actually has affect on people would be kinda unrealistic now that I think of it. But the main point is that the children are not the villains if their lives were in danger if they didn't kill. There's a major plot hole there, because the movie tries to make these kids look scary but if you think it; they just did it to save their own lives from the massive demon thing behind the rows.
Even though this film is full of plot holes, there are still things in this movie that I like. First of all; the town of Gatlin. The scenery is just so beautiful, both at the cornfields and in the city. I could almost smell the fresh corn. And secondary; the actors. Though the actors of our two protagonist kids were kinda stiff, I still enjoyed every child actor in this movie (or maybe actors playing children, because many of them weren't actual children). The kids actually seemed to believe what they were told and the expressions on their faces look really legitimate. Isaac's actor was probably the best thing in this movie. Though he was like twenty-something whilst making the movie, he actually came across as a child to me. His acting was also really good, and the way Isaac spoke was just - of course I have never met a child cult leader talking about sacrificing adults - like I'd imagine a character like him would talk. It's hard to explain, but in few words, he is just one of my favorite actors of all Stephen King adaptions.
Children of the Corn is not the best Stephen King movie - not even close being it, but it just has that something that has been sticking with me since I watched the film for the first time. I recommend watching it, though it doesn't bring anything new to its categories. Now there's only one question. How did this piece of mediocrity get 8 sequels?
It feels like this movie tried to make Vicky and Burt some kind of immortal heroes. In Stephen King's original short story, they end up dying, but here they don't. They just kill off the three bad guys we had and then the movie's just over. And so we get to the next thing I disliked really much in this movie. The ending. In the novel, we know that the children continue sacrificing each other and themselves to He who walks behind the rows, but in this film Burt, as our strong neverdying superhero, comes to preach how every religion with violence as the main point is wrong. Though I agree with that point, as for horror movies, I prefer the ones where the heroes don't survive. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but I think we all can agree on that the ending was super unimpressive. It just leaves the story unfinished. It's almost like they didn't even try. No talking, no music. Just "The End" and nothing else. It raises so many questions that we'll never get answers to.
I think the plot would've been much better if "He who walks behind the rows" was made-up and not an actual being. I've always been more scared by people with just homicidal minds, but never monsters. I'd like the plot better if there never was any bigger force, just Isaac. Or there could've been an adult behind all this because, after all, a 12 year old making up a religion that actually has affect on people would be kinda unrealistic now that I think of it. But the main point is that the children are not the villains if their lives were in danger if they didn't kill. There's a major plot hole there, because the movie tries to make these kids look scary but if you think it; they just did it to save their own lives from the massive demon thing behind the rows.
Even though this film is full of plot holes, there are still things in this movie that I like. First of all; the town of Gatlin. The scenery is just so beautiful, both at the cornfields and in the city. I could almost smell the fresh corn. And secondary; the actors. Though the actors of our two protagonist kids were kinda stiff, I still enjoyed every child actor in this movie (or maybe actors playing children, because many of them weren't actual children). The kids actually seemed to believe what they were told and the expressions on their faces look really legitimate. Isaac's actor was probably the best thing in this movie. Though he was like twenty-something whilst making the movie, he actually came across as a child to me. His acting was also really good, and the way Isaac spoke was just - of course I have never met a child cult leader talking about sacrificing adults - like I'd imagine a character like him would talk. It's hard to explain, but in few words, he is just one of my favorite actors of all Stephen King adaptions.
Children of the Corn is not the best Stephen King movie - not even close being it, but it just has that something that has been sticking with me since I watched the film for the first time. I recommend watching it, though it doesn't bring anything new to its categories. Now there's only one question. How did this piece of mediocrity get 8 sequels?