To have your own franchise is the dream of any studio. In the case of the Corn Children series, everything was done in spite of everything, and as a result we have one of the most infamous film series. Every year, the quality of the films deteriorated until the creators began to issue outright slag. Who is watching this and why it is a separate topic.
Stephen King's film, The Corn Children, was filmed in 1984 and has been safely forgotten. So he would have taken his place in history as one of the passing horror films of the 80s, if in the early 90s one studio was not interested in the ideas of the belated sequel to the film. The sequel was clearly several years in development until the idea was bought out and implemented. The main feature of the film was the confrontation between children and adults. The writers played on the fact that every child wants all the elders to disappear and he can do whatever he wants. In the first film, this idea was in the air, but was not implemented enough. In the sequel, the theme of the confrontation between generations became the main one.
The new tape was warmly received so that the creators had a reserve for sequels. The promising project was sold to young studios Dimension Films and Miramax. According to the old developments, a rather average and very similar to the second film, a triquel was shot, but with the fourth picture, the simply unimaginable began in the franchise. In order for the studio not to lose the rights to the series, it was necessary to issue a continuation of dubious quality once every few years. The sequels sculpted like hot cakes, but they did not stand next to the quality of the first films. Even specially invited stars did not save the situation. The franchise is so mired in the swamp that the very first film was even declared a horror classic and recognized as a good film. Especially when compared to their continuations.
As for the film series number two, it is quite organic. There are no famous actors, but this is only a plus and gives you the opportunity to fully immerse yourself in the atmosphere of a small town and a strange cult. Young talents are a little annoying, but quite tolerant. Some adults only appear for a few scenes to die. The murder scenes are done perfectly, perhaps better and more thoughtful than in all other parts. This movie is very similar to Omen, Children's Games and even Gremlins. All this tape is only a plus.
Lots of scary scenes, hyping at height. So it would go on and on, but different directors and writers just buried the series in the middle of a cornfield with a different vision of the concept of the cycle. It's a shame that a good idea has been ruined since the fourth film. And the last parts and completely departed from the canon, which was the second film.
In this movie series did not develop a style, did not have permanent heroes, each film is a separate story and everything is done differently. Mysticism prevails, then a youth slasher is removed, then an art house. If each individual issue is good, then like a series of films is a failure.
So enjoy the second movie, it's going to get worse.
8 out of 10. I withdraw points for ridiculous heroes, none of whom could be remembered and will be loved by the audience. And also for the overall grayness of the film.
Should I watch this movie series again? Perhaps you should look at the triquel, but not necessarily. All they took after that was garbage that wasn't worth your time.
There is no point in talking about the first corn children. It was a good horror movie like “Maximum Acceleration”, about the first part you can say this: no fish, no meat. In general, a good movie with Linda Hamilton and with an interesting story based on the story of the master of horror. But who would have thought that not the best movie can make a huge franchise at the moment, numbering 9 films! And it all began in 92, when no one known director David Price decided to shoot a sequel to “Children of Corn” for $ 900,000. And here's what happened.
Plot: After the events of the first film, police, reporters and tourists visit Gatlin. The story of the children who killed their parents is being hammered out in the newspapers. New families try to shelter the children, but a journalist John arrives in the town with his son Daniel. And they begin to realize that something is wrong with the children. The only thing that can spoil the plot a bit is the most banal drama between father and son. In terms of horror, the second part beats the first. The way children kill a person by cracking his voodoo doll with a knife or removing the jack, because of which the house falls on the grandmother, looks scary and funny.
Characters: I can state that a new child leader named Maitza is a worthy replacement for Isaac in Part One. Just as loud and passionate at the sermon. I really liked him. Terence Knox either didn't get enough sleep or didn't really want to play. Just without an emotional character who just does what he says. Paul Scherrer basically played well, there were a couple of tasteless moments, but that’s fine.
Special effects: Yes, I know it's 92 years old and the budget for this movie is very small, but some of the special effects look awful. I could have done without them.
In summary: It was a sequel, which is no worse than the first part. The picture is tasty, the plot is interesting, the scenes of murdering adults catch up with horror, and the characters, albeit not all, are quite interesting. Well done, made a good movie. But I can say that the movie is an amateur.
The cult enslaves the new city of “one-story America”
In 1977, for the first time, the terrible story of the master of the horror genre Stephen King “Children of Corn” was published. The writer has always been on the waves of fame, so there is nothing surprising in the fact that already in 1984, that is, after only 7 years, the book was taken as the main basis for artistic adaptation. For a small even at that time money - $ 3 million - the picture was removed, but not to say that it caused universal admiration, although today this film adaptation is ranked as a cult adaptation based on the works of Stephen King.
It was assumed that even a good fee in the United States in the amount of 14.5 million dollars, will not give impetus to the creation of a sequel, but in 1992, these speculations were refuted: screenwriters A L Katz and Gilbert Adler, led by director David Price, presented the sequel in their acclaimed, mainly because of the name of Stephen King, the picture, subtitled “The Last Victim” (although originally the name was “Deadly Harvest”). The budget of the sequel in comparison with the first part decreased significantly, amounting to only 900 thousand dollars. However, the creators had a good help, because obviously the sequel was prepared for screenings in theaters. In general, this was reflected at the box office and “Children of Corn 2” somehow raised almost $ 7 million only in the United States. But it was the last "Children of the Corn", broadcast on the big screen, all the other parts, and there are already 7 of them, immediately formed as "direct-to-video".
Of course, Stephen King himself was not involved in writing the script for the sequel. If in the first part there is a relationship, there is an internal conflict of characters, there is a reasonable interweaving of mysticism, thriller and horror, then in “Children of Corn 2” nothing like this will be found. This will be a completely straightforward action, where the viewer is already familiar with at least the motives of “Children of Corn” easily predicts what will happen and what will be the general plot. In theory, the two main characters from the first part tried to destroy the corn cult of obsessed children and it should not raise their heads, but in another city, where the remaining youth were brought, the cult began to gain strength again, which means only one thing: the blood of adults will be decent.
Of course, there will be a child behind all the monstrous incidents, because the corn cult does not allow you to reach the age of 18. Who will become even unsophisticated in deductive fabrications, the viewer will easily guess. In the review, I will not particularly focus on this character otherwise it is inadvertently possible to prescribe a spoiler, I will limit myself to saying that in comparison with Isaac and Malakay from the first film, the antagonist in the sequel is weaker by several ranks, does not emanate from him the specifics of a violently mad fanatic, he only kills in the name of “He who walks between the ranks”, and in the rest, including his prophetic statements, he is rotten. True and the protagonists are not particularly impressive, again Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton from the first part looked whole and written characters, to follow them was much more interesting than the characters from the sequel (but in this case it turned out thanks to the imagination and genius of Stephen King). As always, there are a lot of secondary characters (this will become some of the hallmarks of the series “Children of Corn”), but they are perceived only as a statistical extra and nothing more.
In terms of bloodshed, "Children of Corn 2" is ahead of its predecessor, murders will be enough and fanatical rituals themselves will have a decent screen time, but this does not contribute to the increase in the entertainment of the film, since the one shown is more like a bacchanalia, where there is neither purpose nor meaning. Mysticism has also become more, but, again, it does not bring any dividends to The Last Victim, since there is no clear connection in the genre presentation of the film, that is, there is an action resembling an action-packed thriller with elements of a horror film, and then everything is blocked by mysticism and such a feeling that it intervened at all out of business and completely destroys the concept of the picture. In addition, the mystical part of the picture, it is also the climax, is equipped with unsuccessful visual special effects, staged at the level of childhood. Although, remember what the budget was “Children of Corn 2: The Last Victim” and for this we will not be particularly strict to judge.
In general, the sequel did not inspire or please. It turned out a standard horror second-class, of which comes out every year in the amount of several dozen, and maybe more. But who did that stop? Next, 7 more parts will follow, based on the cult work of Stephen King and each time everything will only get worse. Therefore, my advice: it is better to familiarize yourself with the literary source and, in extreme cases, watch its very first adaptation, there is no point in following the series “Children of Corn” if only you excessively want to see beginners Charlize Theron or Naomi Watts.
5 out of 10
What I remember about the Corn Children franchise is that the second series was unbearably long and boring. And here is not even in the timekeeping – the picture is a standard 90 minutes, they just stretch as if it takes three hours. I regret that I didn’t write a review of this film when I first watched it about 6 years ago, because now I had to revise it and I constantly postponed it. Is the film as bad as it seemed to me 6-7 years ago or because of my age, I didn’t understand anything? Let's figure it out.
So, here we have the mystical horror David Price "Children of Corn-2: The Last Victim". The film was released 8 years later than the original. Who needed the second half of the corn in 1992? Besides, if the original book doesn't even give hints of a sequel? Did the producers really think the movie would pay off or what? This is a crazy idea for me.
The film begins with the fact that small villains are still caught, and the events in their town are widely reported on the news. Adults from a neighbouring town agree to shelter the children. Of course, there is a slightly nutty grandmother who shouts “no, get these nasty children out,” but as is usually the case, no one ever listens to any ladies and logs, although it would not hurt. Well, of course, in the city rushed journalists, one of whom is also dragging his son — the film tries to focus on “fathers-children”.
The film generally tries to emphasize a lot, but somehow not stubbornly. Unfortunately, it could have been pulled to the ordinary horror of the 80s or early 90s, but it did not work. Let's go through his downsides. The film is so boring that it takes 90 minutes and stretches. Also terribly infuriated illogical plot twists, the absolute idiocy of the characters and fully readable in advance script. It was very easy for the main characters, too predictable.
Also pricked this effect from "Predator", when the demon guarded the victims. Yes, this will be in a huge number of films later (hello, "Voy-7"), but it does not make them pluses, does it? Add to this the most boring scenario, full of illogical actions and it is not clear why the added killed special effects - get "Children of corn-2".
Why are these little kids always walking around at night? Okay, I can forgive you for the scripted joint in the sense that all the kids got together anyway (although it’s hard), but why isn’t anyone watching them anyway? Of course, another crazy prophet is announced, who orders to kill in the name of corn. You go to the fields at night. (By the way, there is corn next to the new town.) Coincidence? More likely, another scenario maneuver.
If you try to find advantages in the film - well, the actress is this young girl who rode a moped. Although the romantic line with her is as broken as all the other lines in this film - read from the very first seconds. You can also mention the scenes of the murder of grandmothers and the mass burning of citizens. These scenes are still remembered, the second scene of the murder of my grandmother is also a circus. I couldn't seriously look at these little guys who make angry, evil grimaces and drive the machine on the remote. In general, unfortunately, the second part sat quite specifically.
(approximately 4 minutes of the film)
Corn Children 2: The Last Victim
I’m completely bewildered, but this movie (at the moment) has more positive and neutral reviews than negative ones. Either you and I have watched completely different movies, or I don’t really understand good horror movies.
This is a 1992 film directed by David Price. You don't know that? He was the one who directed the stupid comedy Dr. Jekyll and Miss Hyde. He has nothing more to boast about. Price decided to continue the painting “Children of Corn” from 1984. The original was based on Stephen King.
Subtract the numbers, we get the difference of 8 years. My first thought is, why go on with a movie that was made so long ago? I don’t know, King didn’t have any sequels, his piece didn’t need a second film. I put my hand on my heart and the original was sluggish (I told you about it).
They waved, sent everything to hell, called Adler and Katz (guys, I love you for Stories from the Crypt, but you shouldn’t have signed up for it). They played crazy game. What do you want to do with me, the script is out of sanity here.
Just watch the logic carefully! Children (survivors) from the first film were taken from a cornfield. They were moved to another city, placed in different shelters and houses. Within a few minutes they were walking together again. Where did you take them? Oh, my God, brainstorm. That’s not all, and next to where they live – there is a giant corn field. Aaaaaaaaa!
The locals are still so surprised - we have here the murders began, like in that town. What are you doing? What are you doing, I ask you, Adler is not just a wretched script, it is already stupidity brought to perfection. Of course, there is one crazy aunt in the film who will yell that children are killing, but nobody cares.
And you still praise that? Yes, here even put six - to recognize the film masterpieces. I’m not arguing that the other sequels may be worse, but this picture turned out to be worthless. I was unbearably bored, and spent an hour and a half in a chair waiting for the final. You still have to look for such a sad twig.
I liked the little girl on the moped. And the moment with Grandma in a wheelchair. Everything else, put it in a cornfield and set it on fire. Very bad sequel! Bypass the side or you can turn it on when you want a good night's sleep.
P.S.
Have you noticed moments in the film that appear in the first person (supposedly through the eyes of a corn demon)? Yeah, it's Predator, ahaha. He has similar vision.
Eight years have passed since the first film, and the second part has been released. It was a long time, but I still hoped that the plot of the first part, which leaves a lot of questions, would be extended with dignity. Well, the failure did not work out, but also good impressions were not so much.
Once again, the plot features a children’s sect of a corn deity and wanderers, who by chance found themselves in a town overrun by these fanatics. It is not a young couple, but a father and son. And here's what was the first shortcoming that quickly spoiled my impression: Why are they so often reminded of their unfriendly relationship? A couple of scenes would suffice, but there will be a dozen, if not more, and by the end of the film it is already pretty tiring. Another disadvantage was the sectarians themselves. If you remember the first part, there were really frightening Isaac and Malachi – both villains, but with different personality traits, and each was a memorable character. It all revolves around the prophet Micah. This character turned out to be worked out, but the rest are present in the film “as if by the way”, they are paid little attention, and this is frustrating.
But the main drawback in the sequel is the absurdities surrounding absolutely all the characters, because of which what is happening is perceived not as a horror film, but a black comedy. Many characters die not because of the sectarians themselves, but because of their own stupidity: for unknown reasons, they do not get out of the traps, although there was enough time, throw weapons at the feet of their enemies and miss the opportunity to deal with these very enemies.
There was a technical blunder in the film: the spear that John throws in one episode does not pierce his enemy through - it is clear that the actor is holding him near him.
In fairness, I note that in principle, the actors for the film were not picked up by the talentless, but only Ryan Bolman, playing Micah, and John Bennes, from whom the really funny holy father came out, could turn around. It seems that all the actors tried to perform their roles as appropriate, but either through the fault of the writer, or for other reasons, some characters came out strange. The doctor, the sheriff and especially the Indian professor behaved very unusually. As for the latter, because of him, fantasy elements appear in the film. It was done for the sake of humor or it’s just an unfortunate plot twist – it’s hard to say, but the result came out strange.
And that in the end: “Children of Corn 2” did not surpass the first part, and the disclosure of characters is even much inferior to it. But I repeat: I don’t blame this film – it’s just obvious that it is far from a masterpiece and a complete failure. Maybe the most ardent fans of the first part will give the second film a good rating, but for me it was not too interesting.
6 out of 10
So, this film continues the storyline of the first film, in the infamous town of Gatlin, came adults, reporters and police officers who investigate the murders of adults from the first film. A reporter of the yellow press goes there, along with his teenage son Dani, but they are late, the children leave for the city, but the reporter does not lose heart and goes to a local hotel. Whose landlady has taken care of a local teenager named Michael, a reporter is trying to find out as much as possible about the incidents in the city of Gatlin.
Films on religious themes, with sects and demons, just a godsend for the director, from such a dizzying burning mixture it was possible to make not a simple mystical tape with an obsessed teenager, but turn to its fullest and create something special, but the creators did not come up with anything new. And left the plot to stoop in the same place as it was in the first film. Children kill adults, and blame it on the mysterious wanderer in the field, who must bring children a special truth, known only to them.
Those who like Gatlin's children are like the original book, cold, alienated from the rest of the world, they have no laws and regulations, they hate adults and want to kill them. A teenager in the role of Michael, coped well with the role of a preacher. Journalist, pale and boring. The hostess of the hotel, an ordinary woman is an unattractive and bored housewife who lacked adventure in life. Dani, a typical young yuppie from the big city, I guess that's all it says. A girl from a neighboring town, a bright person not burdened with morality, dreaming of leaving the town for the metropolis, is an absolutely unpleasant character.
It’s amazing how the directors managed to stretch Stephen King’s little story “Children of Corn” into an entire franchise of 8 films. I didn’t like the ending, all so rainbow and bright, not typical of King, but in the style of Hollywood, that’s all.
5 out of 10
“The Harvest”, which turned out to be far from the “Last”, and extremely successfully, as it turned out later, reanimated for nothing the original, pumped by all critics and by King himself.
Since any sequelization is a thankless affair, this film is also no exception - a mediocre, frankly, craftsmanship, in the atmosphere at times weaker than the same first part. In addition, the ambiguous original idea here has already been bluntly identified with blood and urine, which turned the film into a full-fledged horror, without dramatic religious impurities.
However, against the background of further sequels, it can still catch something. First, Licht used to concoct a great catchy musical motif (although he is certainly slightly inferior to the epic orchestral babbling from the third part or the sadly sinister theme from the first Children). And secondly, it was here that the main serial feature was formed, which was tried to exploit with varying success in subsequent sequels - a high degree of ingenuity in ways of brutal destruction of the people on the screen. The crushed house of the grandmother and, of course, the grandiose scene with bloody voodoo in the church (an obvious timeless horror pearl) in particular indicate that everything was fine with the imagination of the filmmakers. It is a pity that this fantasy was enough only for these action scenes, and the story itself turned out to be raw and uninteresting, although some heresy from Indian mythology and bureaucratic agricultural atrocities were woven into it.
And most importantly, the main demonic teenager here, Mika, for all his efforts, is still not as cool and uncompromisingly charismatic as the good old Isaac and Malachi. Although as a leader he screams and malice is quite plausible and in the list of corn preachers clearly can count on an honorable place. By the way, it seemed that Bolman was the only one who tried to portray something “like this” in the frame. However, unlike Charlize Theron and Eva Mendes to spin on “Children”, he apparently could not and subsequently disappeared in the series. Undeserved, in my opinion.
In general, the second “Children” is a solid creative artistic trio, and perhaps the best corn sequel available.
6 out of 10