The Remake

[Mr. Palmer]

Is anyone interested in watching this?

I enjoyed the first two CHILDREN OF THE CORN films, but after that? No.

Personally, I'll watch the remake like someone slowing down to watch a car wreck.

[mgencarelli]

obviously I definitely going to watch it but it depends if I will watch it on SyFy or DVD, I hate when they edit it for TV...

[mgencarelli]

Its just sad that they release Sorority Row remake in theaters and send this direct to TV

[Terry B]

Is it going to be on SyFy? When?

[bio_chem06]

Apparently it's on SyFy & they have added some Battlestar Galactica alums to the cast, but why would they try to remake a classic. Especially made for TV, don't they ever learn? SK novels never do well as "made for TV"...very frustrating!

[Mr. Palmer]

why would they try to remake a classic

I honestly think that's the first time I've ever heard the CHILDREN OF THE CORN film called a "classic".

:wow:

[bryantburnette]

I watched it.

It was bad. Really bad. As in, "not even as close to being as good as the not-good original" bad. As in, "not even as good as most (if not all) of the sequels" bad.

There was literally not one moment that I felt worked. I really like both Kandyse McClure and David Anders, but even they were quite bad. And that's to say nothing of the kid playing Isaac. I hate to bag on a child for giving a bad performance; I've always felt that's something the director gets the blame for, not the child. Either way, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE performance.

And yet, because I'm a completist, I'm going to buy the DVD. Not until I can find a cheap used copy, though.

[Sawney Beane]

I watched it.

It was bad. Really bad. As in, "not even as close to being as good as the not-good original" bad. As in, "not even as good as most (if not all) of the sequels" bad.

There was literally not one moment that I felt worked. I really like both Kandyse McClure and David Anders, but even they were quite bad. And that's to say nothing of the kid playing Isaac. I hate to bag on a child for giving a bad performance; I've always felt that's something the director gets the blame for, not the child. Either way, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE performance.

And yet, because I'm a completist, I'm going to buy the DVD. Not until I can find a cheap used copy, though.
Is it that bad? Isn´t it at least entertaining? I was looking forward to watch it.Doesn´t surprise me though.:sad:

[bryantburnette]

Just one man's opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but yeah, I thought it was just dreadful. I can't think of one moment that worked.

I'm basing this on the Syfy version ... I suppose it's always theoretically possible that the unrated DVD version could be better.

In the same sense, it's "possible" that somewhere, there is a planet populated entirely by talking cans of Mr. Pibb.

Possible, but extremely unlikely.

[ChaseTx]

I enjoyed it alright, though i haven't read the story or seen any of the old movies yet. The ending was abrupt and disappointing to me. I'm hoping the story was very different from the remake, just so it's a new experience for me.

The actress, Kandyse McClure, is hot. Real hot.

[bryantburnette]

I can't argue with McClure's hotness. Utterly gorgeous.

She is also a very good actress, though you'd never know it from this movie.

She was also in the remake of Carrie, which is a much better showcase of her talents.

[the_last_gunslinger]

I watched it, and thought it was pretty good, overall. I thought there was more suspense than the original, with more gore, and a creepier environment. Plus, it was much closer to the actual short-story than the first movie was. And I was quite happy to see that they retained the Children of the Corn theme song from the 80s version, the one with the children singing.

I think it had some pretty big downfalls, though. I thought the cast was pretty horrible. I didn't like either of the leads very much, and the new version of Isaac was no where near as good as the original. too cutsey acting.

The supporting characters were pretty good, though, and more of them had roles compared to the first.

[ComeUntoSweetDeath]

wow i did not like this at all.. i like David Anders (Alias/Heros) but he played such a a-hole and so was Vicki.. which made me not care what happened to them... When he was lost in the corn i got soo bored i almost fell asleep. I rather watch the movie from the 80's. Disappointing.

[DaveN]

Is it true there is going to be a remake for the big screen?
I wouldne be opposed to that at all. The story is good enough. With the right cast and director i think it could be awesome!

[Blackbeard]

I tried real hard to like the re-make. I wanted to like it. But....

It was awful. Couldn't wait for the girl to get strung up on the cornstalk. She irritated the crap out of me. I think she would have met her demise a whole lot sooner had she been in the car with me.

[Mr. Palmer]

On the credits it lists Sai King as one of the writers.

What I'd like to know is if he had a part in the screenplay, or is he listed because he wrote the story? If he actually wrote some of the film, I'll add it to my collection. But if he gets the credit because he's the initial writer, I'll pass.

Ms. Mod: Can you help me on that one?

[Mr. Palmer]

I've looked around a bit and it's said that Sai King co-wrote the teleplay with the director.

Is this correct?

[Moderator]

I'd have to check on that but I think it's more accurate that he only wrote the original story.

[bryantburnette]

My understanding -- and I'm not enitrely sure where this understanding comes from, I have to admit -- is that Borchers revised a screenplay King had written back in the '80s, and that this is the reason King is officially credited.

Man, I hated that movie. Bad, bad, bad...

[Mr. Palmer]

Since I originally posted my question, more detective work leads me to believe Bryan is correct. I've read quite a few reviews and comments that say pieces were lifted from Sai King's original early 80s screenplay; hence the credit.

[Mr. Palmer]

Here's what DVDVerdict has to same about King's "involvement":


Stephen King's name is all over this project. From the film credits we get the impression the famed author sat down with director Donald Borchers and wrote the update, which would make sense given he did the same with other television remakes. The truth is Borchers is only giving King credit because he's working from the author's original script and quoting lines from the short story. Stephen King did not read this script, nor did he get the slightest bit involved. In fact, producers received a nasty letter from King's legal team stating he wanted nothing to do with it, having no faith or interest in the project. His name is only there for legal reasons, and an awesome marketing angle. Donald Borchers doesn't even know if King has seen the film, so his presence is not as close as some would have you believe. That makes me feel a little better, when I tell you it may be more faithful, but far less effective.



I knew I shouldn't have blown the $15 on this... :down:

[Breed]

I've seen a lot of bad made for TV movies, this ranked right there with some of the worst I've ever seen.

[bryantburnette]

What, I say, what in the tarnation are you talkin' 'bout, boy?

[PatInTheHat]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_okSIvb7zcQE/R4nfFWXI8ZI/AAAAAAAABAE/Tu-xQgDaWqQ/s320/corn.png

:eek2:
And you thought it was terrifying before:eek:!

(and be sure to get The Big Bucket 'O Deep Fried Pig Pancreas w/ X-tra Hormones, to go with your SUPER sized cool refreshing beverage at the concession stand, 'cause this flix is gonna be sweet!)
:laugh:

[Aarny]

The original was god awful, but I thought the remake improved alot over it. Especially since it followed the short story more.

[scratchesass]

Such acting, never before has such an epic cast of thespians graced such a wonderful talkie picture.

Oh wait, wrong movie........
I thought we were talking about something else........

[jackson992]

I thought the remake was horrendous. I cannot think of one good thing about it. The original and book were so much better.

[peaceluvnsploosh]

I watched it.


. And that's to say nothing of the kid playing Isaac. I hate to bag on a child for giving a bad performance; I've always felt that's something the director gets the blame for, not the child. Either way, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE performance.

.

Oh wow i totally agree- i mean they had this tiny little kid in an oversized hay play isaac--- i mean isaac makes the movies in my opiniion his character is so strong and demanding and leading but truthfully why would i want to listen to a kid that im taller then--- now the original isaac id listen to every danbg word he'd have to say cuz now thats a creepy person:)

[gage04]

I haven't seen it yet, but i've been avoiding it like the plague for the simple fact that the original movie is one of my faves from SK. I think without Linda Hamilton it's going to be tragic. I'll give my opinion once I watch it. Thanks for all the review, i guess if i go in expecting crap, then maybe it won't be so bad when I watch it!

[Seb Shaw]

i've not read teh book or seen any of the movies yet, but i do intend to , although you guys seem to pritty much hate them....

[bryantburnette]

They're terrible movies, but I've got an inexplicable tolerance for them; the only one I hate is the remake, which is both inept AND pretentious, a truly awful mixture. The others are merely inept, which can sometimes be fun.

[roblov89]

The remake was kind of boring to me, however the scenes portrayed in it was actually better than the past movie because if you've read the story the ending and many other things happened the way they were supposed to. that's the way i like my stories to be seen, because it gives people false lines, and when they read the story after seeing the movie they realize how different the movie really was and it seems sort of deceitful to the true story.

[mr.jingles120]

finally someone gets the picture

[Dan is Dead]

this all makes me sad. i loved the original. why didnt they just leave it alone. or try there best to make it better

[Addiction314]

As I recall, King was so upset with the butchering of his work in the first version (and any subsequent versions made it even worse) that he refused to have anything to do with the remake. The remake is closer to the original story than the "original" movie was, and this is something that the director comments on in the DVD. It sounded like either the director or producer (or both) was upset with how different the "original" was from the actual story, and wanted to go back and redo it better. Probably a lot like Roald Dahl was so upset with the treatment of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the 70s version) that he refused to let the sequel happen - I imagine he would also have been much happier with the remake.

I didn't think the DVD was bad, but that is the only version I watched - didn't even know it was on SyFy until I saw it in the video store.

All in all, I thought it was a very bleak picture of their society - as far as horror goes, I don't really find any so-called horror movies (or stories) to be scary. I laugh at the different ways people are killed most of the time, instead of being scared. I mainly find King's stuff to be massively entertaining, but have never considered it to be horror in any way. Now some of Poe's stuff...that is true horror.

[Addiction314]

Ok, I checked my facts - I thought it was the same guy. The writer, director, and producer of the remake was also the producer of the 1984 film, and he wasn't happy with what they were able to do back then. But, I guess it is up to the viewers to decide whether he succeeded - sounds like many of you disapprove of his "improvements."

[Nisi]

I'm from Germany, and I've heard nothing about a remake. When was it produced?

I like the original, but it's not easy to get a DVD, because the original film is forbidden I think, like so many other good movies. We can only buy the censored versions of many movies :sad:, so I have to buy those movies via internet in austria.

[Addiction314]

You should be able to find the unrated DVD in just about any international site - ebay being the one that comes to mind for me. If you are willing to pay the shipping (which won't be much for just one DVD), it shouldn't be a problem. Of course, you may need to make a region-free copy so it will work on your DVD player, depending on what you have.

[Property of the Overlook]

I really didnt like the remake either. When they skip ahead 20 years none of the kids grow up. Has anyone seen the short movie Disciples of the Crow off of the Night Shift Collections. I have it on vhs and that is my favorite version, the only problem is that it is only 20 mins long and at the end you are wanting more, atleast I was. If you havent seen it you should definitly check it out.

[SeleneM1]

I was expecting it to be worse than it was. And I'm a little ashamed to admit I liked it better than AVATAR! (Rented and watched both on the same night)...Not sure what that says about me. :)

The acting was a little shrill at first, but got better once they had something to do. The kids were hilarious. It was a LOT closer to the book, which I appreciated. The underage ritual sex scene was gratuitous.

Definitely not the best King adaptation, but far from the worst, I think.

[A Plymouth's Fury]

I watched the "Children of the Corn" re-make on Sci-Fi/SyFy and well...I watched it. This film was not a great film but it was a decent movie. Let me first say that I do not like re-makes. Very few of them are worth watching and I have no idea why there are so many of them. But that's just my opinion. Having said that I think this version was a good effort on their [the filmmakers] part. It's no small task to undertake a re-make of a film that has so many fans and of a story that is nothing short of a classic. So, I applaud them for putting forth an effort. However, the one thing that I could not get past while watching this film [and I wonder if anyone else here on the board thought the same] is that half of the movie seemed to be "Children of the Corn". Yet the other half appeared to be taken from another Stephen King short story You Know They Got A Hell Of A Band from the anthology Shock Rock. I don't know if it's just that the two stories are so similar {i.e. - a man and a woman driving through the country, arguing, they get lost and end up in Hell town, etc.} or the filmmakers purposely put the two stories together. Either way, I liked the film alright but it's no great thing.

[Workinggirl]

I got duped into buying the remake of this movie. I was so psyched it was avail on sale that I grabbed it. However, I was super bummed to find out it was a remake. It wasn't the worst I have seen, but it sure wasn't the original I love.

[Lina]

I've finally watched the Remake a few days ago. Well, I can say it for sure - I don't like it. The original movie is much, much better (yes, it happens all the time - the remakes are usually worse that the original movies, so I wasn't surprised that it turned to be so in this case too). Okay, sure it's not the worst adaptation of SK novel... but still, it's not so good as I wished it were.

[Infilled]

First movie was the best, by far.

[Laymonking]

I actually enjoyed the remake, it probably it is the best COTC film but that really isn't saying much is it? I thought it moved at a good pace, and actually made the idea creepy while the others were just campy B-grade slashers . The acting was better and thankfully it had all the bogus bulls**** that bogged the original series down removed . And it stuck very closely to source material. Not a bad movie in my eyes.

[Tyrotoxic]

I enjoyed the original Children of the Corn so much that when I was younger I wrote a fan-fiction all about it. Children of the Corn (the orginal) is definitely one of my favourites, but I'm biased too because Linda Hamilton is awesome.

[Carlos Solrac]

to me, the original stands out as the ORIGINAL! but it's not an exact adaptation of the original short story. The couple was loving instead of fighting, they, as one person put it, a Hollywood-ized version of the story. The remake was the true adaptation of the original story to a key. I personally enjoyed the remake. and I can understand how the original was better in some eyes, but in mine, if you are going to do an adaptation of a short story or novel, don't pull a LESS THAN ZERO on us! I like this one because it is true to the original story

[Corn Princess]

I think nothing original like the Children of the Corn should be made into a remake. Remakes and sequels sometimes hurt the story.

[bryantburnette]

The remake is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Awful from the first frame to the last; just utterly terrible. Makes the original, which is itself an awful movie, look like a masterpiece.