CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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

Scott LeBrun The second (small) screen version of Stephen Kings' short story stars David Anders and Kandyse McClure as the couple Burt and Vicky Stanton. Burt & Vicky, whose relationship has turned utterly venomous, are travelling cross country. On their way through Nebraska, they run down a child in the road - only for Burt to realize that the kid was basically dead before they hit him; his throat was slashed. Making it to the nearby tiny town of Gatlin, they are soon confronting the towns' children, who have turned murderous and now pray to a different sort of God named "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".This version is scripted by King himself and director Donald P. Borchers, who'd produced the 1984 feature film. Unlike the original, "Children of the Corn" '09 is scrupulously faithful to the story. (Not that being faithful is always necessarily a good thing.) Burt and Vicky are NOT getting along to begin with, so their current situation only makes things worse. Problem with this is that you'll probably find it hard to care about this idiot couple. He comes off slightly better, but only because he's more low key and isn't nearly as insufferable as she is. He's still a stubborn dummy, of course, and their inability to get the Hell out of Dodge before the excrement hits the fan merely serves to seal their fate.One new wrinkle this time is to make Burt & Vicky an inter-racial couple, not that it actually adds anything to the story. That element is just sort of there. The King / Borchers teleplay also goes awfully heavy on the 'Nam parallels, making Burt a veteran who ends up flashing back to his time in the service. There's also some good old fashioned sex to spice things up a little.The original film may have been laughable, and ultimately cheesy, but at least it had more personality, and was more entertaining, than this. It's not good when you can't bring yourself to root for the protagonists. Anders and McClure do whatever they're capable of with these roles, but they're easily outshone by Daniel Newman, as Malachai, and Preston Bailey, as the intense boy preacher Issac. Still, these two kids aren't going to stick in your memory the way that Courtney Gains and John Franklin do.One worthy component is the music by Jonathan Elias (who scored the '84 film) and Nathaniel Morgan. Robert Kurtzman supplies the decent enough gore.This viewer didn't hate this adaptation nearly as much as some people, but will concede that the '84 film shows people a generally better time, despite its utterly goofy, upbeat ending.If you stick it out to the bitter end, there IS a final scene following the end credits.Six out of 10.

Coventry 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!

xhidden99 I was dozing when this came on and Kandyse McClure's screaming and nagging got me off the couch and moving around like I should have been. I swear I wanted to punch her in the face until my arms got too tired to lift. It's hard to see how her 'psycho' war vet boyfriend didn't snap and tear her head off her body. He's all cool and calm and she's gone full shrieking harpy for what must have been 10 or 12 minutes until he slapped her once which shut her up for maybe 45 seconds.This is the kind of movie that makes you wish an asteroid came down in the cornfield and wipes out most of the state and everyone in it. Who knows maybe in the 5th remake it will and aliens will pop out and join forces with the Amish Devil-Children or whatever they are. Nothing that anyone does makes the least sense. Ever. Whatever a rational self-preserving non retarded person would do, these characters do the opposite. So you're sort of rooting for the Devil-Farmers pretty soon. You're hoping there's a treasure trove of rusty farm tools with which they can use to slaughter the cast.

Leofwine_draca Originally a short story by Stephen King, the CHILDREN OF THE CORN concept has produced a veritable goldmine for Hollywood producers over the years, ever since the 1984 film adaptation proved a smash hit and the inevitable sequels followed. They continued through the 1990s (seven to date), and then somebody decided that enough time had passed to remake the first film. I wish they hadn't bothered: this is an awful, pointless, plot less movie and, even worse, made for television!At least that accounts for the distinct lack of adult content, although I understand there is an unrated version available in some territories (I won't be checking out: a few snippets of gore will make no difference to this travesty). The wholehearted blame for the failure of this production can be laid at the door of scriptwriter/director Donald P. Borchers (perhaps that's a misspelling of Butcher, given his handling of the material here), who has somehow managed to create one of the most irritating characters ever seen in a movie. Yes, I'm talking about Kandyse McClure's character of Vicky, the protagonist's wife, who shrill and incessant howling every time she appears on screen is enough to make the ears bleed.Still, the rest of the film isn't anything to write home about. The 'hero', David Anders, is a bland man indeed, a supposed Vietnam war veteran who acts and feels nothing like a soldier. A late on scene, in which he begins to hallucinate fellow soldiers crawling through the corn, is one of the most unintentionally funny scenes I've witnessed in a while; they way they film it just makes it look like Anders has joined up with a few of his fellow comrades to help combat the menace, and I still chuckle thinking about it even now.Meanwhile, the film contains absolutely nothing of note. There's a single plot point at the beginning, another one an hour in, and then the seen-it-coming ending about half an hour later. Way too much screen time is given over to characters running around aimlessly. The titular children aren't menacing in the least; one thing I remember from the original film is how creepy the actor playing Isaac was, but the Isaac here is much younger, cuter, and hearing him preach in that soft, whiny little voice is anything but frightening. Bland, boring, predictable…need I say more about this movie? Occasionally remakes work, and even more rarely they turn out to be better than the original, but that's definitely not the case here!