Not my first time to watch this but definitely my last. I re-watched it only for the sake of nostalgia and .... yeesh, this thing was horrible. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors; unfortunately, not ONE of his novels has translated to the big screen adequately. I don't know if he can be faulted for that but it seems like if he had watched the screening of this.... I don't know. Maybe back in 1984 this was something but by today's standards, that "something" is "utterly ridiculous". The effects in the closing sequences were horribly lame but it wasn't just that that ruined this for me: it was the entire concept of a bunch of CHILDREN somehow overpowering a town full of adults, killing them all, and then living "happily ever after" by following the orders of some snotty johnny-come-lately telling them about some mysterious being that lives in the cornfields. "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".... that's the best they could come up with? Make no mistake: the short story written by King was a great story...but even it was far-fetched. And the attempt to morph the short story into an hour-and-a-half movie, well, it just failed miserably. I can't even give kudos to anyone here for acting chops, as it was all just BAD. Of course, the majority of the movie was about "children" and very few children are going to produce Oscar-worthy performances. No fear of that happening here, certainly. Even Linda Hamilton couldn't rescue this one. This was just awful.

A classic with a motif that is often been adopted since - creepy kids that kill all their parents and try to live on their own; in away this was lastly depicted [spoiler]in American Horror Story: Hotel, with the School-Sidestroy-Arc.[/spoiler]

That is definitely something to take into account; as is the fact, that over the time it has gained a certain cult status (it even inspired the name of the Band KoRn as well as one of their song titles "Children of the KoRn"), despite the really low budget this film was produced on.

It is that low budget that in the end invited so much negative criticism: The bad, really cheesy graphics effects, the rushed ending, the bad acting by some actors. Story-wise it is - on the other hand - really strong. It is mostly suspense, and less explicit graphics, it had an - for that time - inspired new idea, it paved the way for children as the evil creatures of horror movies; all points to take into consideration. And talking about bad actors: There are also really good ones, such as Linda Hamilton, who seems to be too good (and kind of untapped as she is capable of so much more) to be in this movie.

On the other hand, however, from a today's viewers standpoint, it has aged really badly. Comparing it to movies such as Orphan or Insidious, the kids are completely tame and not at all frightening, the dialogues are a bit dated and feel strange, and the suspense is - for today's standards - much less frightening and lean more towards the boring side of things.

So in the end I am torn between a high rating that deserves a cult classic that has inspired many other movies to come and the low rating of a dated movie that leans towards being a bit boring and cheesy. I still believe it is worth at least having seen it once. So I'll grade it with an average 3/5

Linda Hamilton is always a pleasure to look at right? Such a beautiful woman!

Anyway, children are freaking scary and disturbing when they are shouting bible verses....and it also helps when the child actors can do a decent job!

So, this one isn't all that bad and apparently it spawned, many, many sequels. Which I'm now wondering what they are all about. Are they about that weird special effect? Well I do think so!

The setting this film is creepy, which is always a plus for a horror film, the short story it is based on could've been used better, like use that ending! But still, I enjoyed myself! And that is what a film must set out to do right? Entertain us! I do think it was kinda brutal to see a kid get killed in a film. Haven't seen that yet, that much!

Will the sequels be worth a shot? I don't know maybe if I have the spare time? I do think they are gonna be terrible because I don't know how you can get more out of this. But I'll wonder....and just have to wait to find out!

"Send her a get well card from Seattle." amazing line to finish a movie with right?

***Children of the damned… in the cornfields of the American prairie***

A young couple traveling through the endless cornfields of Nebraska (Peter Horton & Linda Hamilton) visits a town so far off the beaten track it’s not even on the map. Yet it seems abandoned, except for some kids scurrying around. Horror ensues.

“Children of the Corn” (1984) takes the remote Plains town setting of “The Last Picture Show” (1971) and gives it a horror spin based on Stephen King’s short story. The later “Husk” (2011) used the same template. King, however, wasn’t pleased with the results, as conveyed in his statement: "My feeling is like a guy who sends his daughter off to college. You hope she'll do well. You hope she won't fall in with the wrong people. You hope she won't be raped at a fraternity party, which is pretty well what happened to Children of the Corn."

The uninhibited town with scavenging kids makes the film come across as a post-apocalyptic flick. The protagonists are likable and the movie works up some creepy rural mood. People have described the film as sacrilegious, but it’s clear that the kids’ hybrid religion is not a true expression of Christianity since it’s clearly sullied by “he who walks behind the rows.” One of the picture’s criticisms is the ambiguity of this thing, but I suppose enough is revealed to put the pieces together. Still, the lack of exposition is disappointing. And the gaudy effects in the last act are lousy.

Another arguable negative is the portrayal of the cult with the use of child & teen actors. I think they did pretty good all things considered. The growing schism between leader Isaac (John Franklin) and chief disciple Malachai (Courtney Gains) is interesting. It’s just difficult to portray diabolic cults, like witches and satanists, without getting eye-rolling and laughable.

In any case, imagine the casting auditions for Malachai wherein the producers are looking for a tall teenage boy with a mean face and shocking mane. Courtney Gains enters the room and answers some questions when the producers state: "This is going well; you've just about got it clinched. But, as a formality, could you shout ‘Outlander’ at the top of your lungs?”

The movie runs 1 hour, 32 minutes, and was shot mainly in Iowa.

GRADE: C+

And a child shall lead them...

Who would have thunk it, that one of Stephen King's short stories would spawn a gargantuan movie franchise? Children of the Corn is one of those movies that horror fans of a certain age, who started to blossom in the 1980s, remember fondly but agree that now it's a bit, well, corny.

Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton get trapped in a village of the damned where the children have killed the adults and established a religious order that gives worship to the devil of the corn. Isaac Chroner (John Franklin) and Malachai Boardman (Courtney Gains) head the creepy kid cult, corn does sway, blood does flow, poor special effects do down the devil, yet it's atmospheric as heck fire and still a bunch of fun if you forgive it its dated foibles. 6/10