ÉVALUATION IMDb
3,8/10
6,7 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWhile traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.While traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.While traveling, an unhappy married couple encounter a cult of murderous children who worship an entity called He Who Walks Behind the Rows.
Paul Butler
- Nahum
- (as Paul Butler Jr.)
Avis en vedette
Absolutely unnecessary remake of the 1983 original, this time for the small screen. A couple wanders into the wrong farm town, where no adults are to be found. There seems to be an awful lot of somber-looking kids hanging around, however. I think most of you know where the plot goes from there. The acting is so-so, the scripting also just so-so. The so-called leader of the children looks oddly like a cartoon character, with a really big hat and spindly legs and squeaky voice. He reminded me of a cross between Mickey Mouse and a mushroom. As such, he is good for a laugh. The film has no scares, but it does have some decent violence as the story progresses. There have been something like six CHILDREN OF THE CORN flicks prior to this, most of them not worth watching. Heck, even the original was nothing to write home about. So I am not sure why anyone thought a TV remake was needed. It wasn't.
Look I been meaning to see the original for quite a well, haven't yet. I happened to get my hands on this version first. I thought the concept is superb, I imagine the book to be real good, and apparently the original film is effective. But to be honest I found this one rather terribly done. First and foremost, please, enough of those stupid boo fright snappy effects for nothing, that's cheating and we all getting a wee bit immune to it, it makes the film look lousy to begin with, that ain't no way to create a sickening atmosphere. Some crappy acting all over, or should I blame the script? I dunno, but kids included, I can see the parents helping them memorize those parts as though for a school play. The extras were awful too, I'm sorry boys and girls. Some really obvious spoon feeding annoyed me, like the new testament ripped out the bible and there are many stupid mistakes in this film, particularly in the chase, and then when the plants start going against the guy on the run, that's just too much. All this is a shame because I am aware of the impact the leader's words are supposed to have on me at the end when he shouts "SCARECROW!" but forget it.
Everybody only seems to talk bad about the female lead actor/actress and IMO she was not the only bad actor in this crap they call a film. All the actors in this....whatever--were just.plain.HORRIBLE. OMG the movie was so poorly acted, the kids looked neither creepy nor scary they looked more like some bad teenagers from some 80s movie about kids having a Rad summer or whatever. Goodness grief who wrote the script? Everything about this movie was just awful. I turned away 15 into the film. I watched this again thinking maybe i should give this movie a chance. What was i thinking? Ugh. I wish I could give this movie so many negative stars because that is exactly what this piece of blah deserves.
I was able to get to the end of this movie, but... only because I wanted to see how this version differed from the 1980s version, and to also see if this version was any truer to the original Stephen King story.
The two main characters were definitely more true to the original short story. Their bickering was pretty nasty, but the woman was overdone in her acidic nastiness, to the point of straining the boundaries of disbelief. Anyway, their acting was sincere and created a believable tension where the events that followed had their opening.
The movie was better in many ways than the 80s version, all except for one main glaring error. The casting of whoever played Isaac, the child leader/preacher. His line delivery was slush-mouthed and weak, words trailing off too quietly, with no believable passion. For the casting of a evangelical preacher, this particular child was an absolutely terrible choice. Every time he had any screen time or lines, I just kept saying "nope, no, nuh-uh, NOPE" in my head. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief and the obvious failure in the casting choice just kept bringing me out of the story.
The casting of Malachi was too much a mimicry of the 80s version.
Its difficult to cast children for TV movies, I assume, but at least get some kids who don't speak as though they've been novacained.
If you're a Stephen King fan, this might be worth exploring. If you were a fan of the original movie adaptation, well maybe then, too. Otherwise, there are much better choices.
The two main characters were definitely more true to the original short story. Their bickering was pretty nasty, but the woman was overdone in her acidic nastiness, to the point of straining the boundaries of disbelief. Anyway, their acting was sincere and created a believable tension where the events that followed had their opening.
The movie was better in many ways than the 80s version, all except for one main glaring error. The casting of whoever played Isaac, the child leader/preacher. His line delivery was slush-mouthed and weak, words trailing off too quietly, with no believable passion. For the casting of a evangelical preacher, this particular child was an absolutely terrible choice. Every time he had any screen time or lines, I just kept saying "nope, no, nuh-uh, NOPE" in my head. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief and the obvious failure in the casting choice just kept bringing me out of the story.
The casting of Malachi was too much a mimicry of the 80s version.
Its difficult to cast children for TV movies, I assume, but at least get some kids who don't speak as though they've been novacained.
If you're a Stephen King fan, this might be worth exploring. If you were a fan of the original movie adaptation, well maybe then, too. Otherwise, there are much better choices.
This has to one the worst made for TV movie I've seen, never mind it was a remake of a Stephen King Classic. The lead actress really overacted her part, but I really can't blame her with the script she took her lines from. The children aren't even in the least bit scary and the little boy who played Issac recites his lines like he's still trying to remember them. There is absolutely no atmosphere, eeriness or creepiness which the original movie had an abundance of. This version is stale and falls flat on its face. The male lead is the only one who is even slightly believable. Who wrote the script? I had to keep asking myself did they write this for adults.
Oh, why SYFY do you keep persisting in torturing us with cheap and stupid movies? I'd give this movie a -10 if I could.
Oh, why SYFY do you keep persisting in torturing us with cheap and stupid movies? I'd give this movie a -10 if I could.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film takes place in 1963 and 1975.
- GaffesYou can't put holes in the gas tank by punching holes in the fenders.
- ConnexionsReferenced in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: The Ugly Truth/G-Force/Orphan (2009)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Stephen King's Children of the Corn
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 2 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Durée1 heure 32 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant