Children Of The Corn (2009)
Children Of The Corn (2009)
The 1984 version of Children Of The Corn, had the opportunity to use a script written by Stephen King, who the producers felt was good enough, so they decided to use a script written by George Goldsmith, which greatly changed the characters of Vicky and Burt, and also gave the film a happy ending, which they felt was a more commercially successful option. Their film was very successful in the box office, and has become a part of American pop-culture. However producer Donald Borchers, later felt that they had made the wrong decision, and realized that the critique King's script, as well as his short story made about religion, was a very valuable critique, as some of the worst atrocities in human history have been made in the name of religions. In 2009 Borchers felt it was important to make a film rooted in the screenplay that Stephen King wrote for the original film, and according to an interview in the special features of the 2009 Children Of The Corn film, he said that he contacted Stephen King to get his approval, but was unable to get his cooperation for doing the remake, and since he had the rights to do the remake from the studio, he went ahead and made a remake of Children Of The Corn that he felt was closer to King's screenplay and short story.
Children Of The Corn (2009) follows the story of Burt and Vicky who are trapped in a loveless marriage, and who do nothing but fight with each other constantly throughout the film. Burt accidently hits a young boy with their car, and he discovers that the boy's throat had been slit, so they seek help, which leads them to the small farming town of Gatlin Nebraska. But they don't find help, they instead find a cult of children who worship the god of the corn "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", and their god demands that they sacrifice the outlanders. We know how the original film ended, but that doesn't prepare us for what happens to Burt and Vicky in this darker remake of Children Of The Corn.
Children Of The Corn was written and directed by Donald Borchers, based on the short story by Stephen King. The film was distributed by 20th Television (a subdivision of 20th Century Fox), and Anchor Bay handled the home video distribution. The film aired on SyFy channel in 2009. Children Of The Corn seemed to come and go with little notice from the critics, or really even the fans for that matter, and it is just another forgotten chapter in the history of Children Of The Corn films, which after the original film, became of long series of pointless sequels. Though this version of King's short story claims to be closer to King's original script ideas, Stephen King had nothing to do with this film.
Children Of The Corn stars David Anders as Burt Robeson who is a Vietnam Vet who married the "homecoming queen", Kandyse McClure plays his wife Vicky Robeson. The two are in a loveless marriage, and are constantly bickering and fighting with each other. Preston Bailey Isaac the 9 year-old leader of the cult of children, Daniel Newman plays Malachai who is Isaac's second in command and the leader of the "big boys", and Alexa Nikolas plays Ruth who is pregnant with Malachai's child. The two main adult characters differ greatly in this version of the film, honestly I hated these two characters, especially Burt. Burt and Vicky are the type of main characters that I just found myself wishing that they would die so I could stop listening to their endless bickering and bitching at each other, they are both very hateable characters, especially Burt. Burt is a fucking psycho in this film, and I couldn't stand his character at all. The characters of Isaac and Malachai were much closer to the characters that we saw in the original film, though they were actually played by children, rather than adults. That is a huge difference between this film and the earlier version of Children Of The Corn, the children were actually played by children, with exception of one particular scene, which is the sowing scene in the church. The sowing scene helped to explain how a cult of children could maintain their populations, which was vaguely hinted at in the original film, but in this film it graphically shows it, rather than implies it. The scene has Isaac saying a sermon, and then two of the older children disrobe and have sex in front of the rest of the cult (obviously I assume that they were adult actors, and for the nude sex scene I assume that all of the actual children were not on the hopefully closed set, and that the shoulders of the kids that we see in the scene were adult stand-ins). The casting of the children was well done though, and I feel that by casting actual children that the film has more power and authenticity to it.
Like the original film, it was shot in Iowa rather than in Nebraska. The 1984 film was shot in North Western Iowa, where as the 2009 film was shot in Eastern Iowa, in the small town of Lost Nation Iowa, and Oxford Junction Iowa. The two small towns used in the film are on hwy 136 and if one were to make a triangle with Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, and the "Quad Cities" at its points, then Lost Nation and Oxford Junction would be smakdab in the center of it. The filming location fit the story really well, even with the film set in the 1970s, the "downtown" areas of the towns used looked quite fitting of the time period, even in 2009. The film used mostly practical effects for the gore and special effects, and the CGI was used only when necessary, mostly pertaining to sets and to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". The film actually looks pretty good, and the effects work well. However, the film also has a cheapness to it, and I mean that in a bad way, and what exactly I mean by that I can't really pinpoint exactly, but it just feels cheap and like an imitation of a good film (if that makes sense). With Vicky and Burt being loathsome characters, there is really no one to care about in this story, there is not one to sympathize with, and no one to root for. The film feels unsatisfying and pointless really. I get the concept of not rewarding good characters for being good, which Borchers talks about in the special features, but damn it man, you got to at least put some "good" characters in your film, because why should anyone care about your film, if they can't actually care about a single damn character in your film? Hell, I like that it doesn't have a happy ending, but even that, without characters to care about, that dismal ending has no power, no effect, and it just feels meaningless. Without a single redeemable character in the film, this ends up being a meaningless film. We get to see a couple bickering at each other and just becoming absolutely irredeemably loathsome characters, we see religiously zealous children who murdered every adult in their town, and are led by 9 year-old cult leader, we see children having sex and impregnating each other, and we see a psycho Vietnam Vet snap and start brutally killing children in a cornfield, the only other adult is a long dead cop (so not someone to care about even if he was alive), the closest to a redeemable character might be Ruth, but even then there isn't any reason to care about her until after the credits finish rolling (yes, you have to sit through the entire credits, because there is a long scene after the credits, which went on long enough to make me wonder if the film was actually a two part film, but I don't know if there was a damn point in it, unless there was a sequel planned that would put Ruth as the main character).
I want to be fair, this isn't a "bad film", it is honestly a pretty decent film, but it is also unsatisfying and pointless feeling. I don't know if I would recommend this film really, I think that in a few ways it is better, or at least more true to King's short story, but with how the characters were written, the improvements end up just being pointless and empty. To be honest the 1984 film, even though it differed from what Stephen King wanted it to be, was a the superior film. I believe that Stephen King was right in wanting nothing to do with this film, I kind of wish he could have just stopped it, and all of the sequels to the original film from happening. But that is the thing that sucks about a studio purchasing the movie rights to a book, is that those rights extend beyond just the original film, and can entitle the studio to making endless terrible sequels and remakes, until the author films to stop it, which I read King is trying to do with some of his classic books whose rights had been purchased to make film adaptations. I do wish I could hear Stephen King's thoughts on this film. Honestly, I wish I could have a movie night with Stephen King and talk about films together, what we love and what we hate about them, I highly respect his opinions on films, and I highly recommend you all reading his non-fiction book Danse Macabre, in which he talks about the history of horror in both literature and film. How about this, rather than investing over time watching Children Of The Corn (2009) as well as the terrible sequels to the original film, how about just go buy a copy of Danse Macabre and read that instead, it is a much better use of your time!
Children Of The Corn (2009) follows the story of Burt and Vicky who are trapped in a loveless marriage, and who do nothing but fight with each other constantly throughout the film. Burt accidently hits a young boy with their car, and he discovers that the boy's throat had been slit, so they seek help, which leads them to the small farming town of Gatlin Nebraska. But they don't find help, they instead find a cult of children who worship the god of the corn "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", and their god demands that they sacrifice the outlanders. We know how the original film ended, but that doesn't prepare us for what happens to Burt and Vicky in this darker remake of Children Of The Corn.
Children Of The Corn was written and directed by Donald Borchers, based on the short story by Stephen King. The film was distributed by 20th Television (a subdivision of 20th Century Fox), and Anchor Bay handled the home video distribution. The film aired on SyFy channel in 2009. Children Of The Corn seemed to come and go with little notice from the critics, or really even the fans for that matter, and it is just another forgotten chapter in the history of Children Of The Corn films, which after the original film, became of long series of pointless sequels. Though this version of King's short story claims to be closer to King's original script ideas, Stephen King had nothing to do with this film.
Children Of The Corn stars David Anders as Burt Robeson who is a Vietnam Vet who married the "homecoming queen", Kandyse McClure plays his wife Vicky Robeson. The two are in a loveless marriage, and are constantly bickering and fighting with each other. Preston Bailey Isaac the 9 year-old leader of the cult of children, Daniel Newman plays Malachai who is Isaac's second in command and the leader of the "big boys", and Alexa Nikolas plays Ruth who is pregnant with Malachai's child. The two main adult characters differ greatly in this version of the film, honestly I hated these two characters, especially Burt. Burt and Vicky are the type of main characters that I just found myself wishing that they would die so I could stop listening to their endless bickering and bitching at each other, they are both very hateable characters, especially Burt. Burt is a fucking psycho in this film, and I couldn't stand his character at all. The characters of Isaac and Malachai were much closer to the characters that we saw in the original film, though they were actually played by children, rather than adults. That is a huge difference between this film and the earlier version of Children Of The Corn, the children were actually played by children, with exception of one particular scene, which is the sowing scene in the church. The sowing scene helped to explain how a cult of children could maintain their populations, which was vaguely hinted at in the original film, but in this film it graphically shows it, rather than implies it. The scene has Isaac saying a sermon, and then two of the older children disrobe and have sex in front of the rest of the cult (obviously I assume that they were adult actors, and for the nude sex scene I assume that all of the actual children were not on the hopefully closed set, and that the shoulders of the kids that we see in the scene were adult stand-ins). The casting of the children was well done though, and I feel that by casting actual children that the film has more power and authenticity to it.
Like the original film, it was shot in Iowa rather than in Nebraska. The 1984 film was shot in North Western Iowa, where as the 2009 film was shot in Eastern Iowa, in the small town of Lost Nation Iowa, and Oxford Junction Iowa. The two small towns used in the film are on hwy 136 and if one were to make a triangle with Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, and the "Quad Cities" at its points, then Lost Nation and Oxford Junction would be smakdab in the center of it. The filming location fit the story really well, even with the film set in the 1970s, the "downtown" areas of the towns used looked quite fitting of the time period, even in 2009. The film used mostly practical effects for the gore and special effects, and the CGI was used only when necessary, mostly pertaining to sets and to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". The film actually looks pretty good, and the effects work well. However, the film also has a cheapness to it, and I mean that in a bad way, and what exactly I mean by that I can't really pinpoint exactly, but it just feels cheap and like an imitation of a good film (if that makes sense). With Vicky and Burt being loathsome characters, there is really no one to care about in this story, there is not one to sympathize with, and no one to root for. The film feels unsatisfying and pointless really. I get the concept of not rewarding good characters for being good, which Borchers talks about in the special features, but damn it man, you got to at least put some "good" characters in your film, because why should anyone care about your film, if they can't actually care about a single damn character in your film? Hell, I like that it doesn't have a happy ending, but even that, without characters to care about, that dismal ending has no power, no effect, and it just feels meaningless. Without a single redeemable character in the film, this ends up being a meaningless film. We get to see a couple bickering at each other and just becoming absolutely irredeemably loathsome characters, we see religiously zealous children who murdered every adult in their town, and are led by 9 year-old cult leader, we see children having sex and impregnating each other, and we see a psycho Vietnam Vet snap and start brutally killing children in a cornfield, the only other adult is a long dead cop (so not someone to care about even if he was alive), the closest to a redeemable character might be Ruth, but even then there isn't any reason to care about her until after the credits finish rolling (yes, you have to sit through the entire credits, because there is a long scene after the credits, which went on long enough to make me wonder if the film was actually a two part film, but I don't know if there was a damn point in it, unless there was a sequel planned that would put Ruth as the main character).
I want to be fair, this isn't a "bad film", it is honestly a pretty decent film, but it is also unsatisfying and pointless feeling. I don't know if I would recommend this film really, I think that in a few ways it is better, or at least more true to King's short story, but with how the characters were written, the improvements end up just being pointless and empty. To be honest the 1984 film, even though it differed from what Stephen King wanted it to be, was a the superior film. I believe that Stephen King was right in wanting nothing to do with this film, I kind of wish he could have just stopped it, and all of the sequels to the original film from happening. But that is the thing that sucks about a studio purchasing the movie rights to a book, is that those rights extend beyond just the original film, and can entitle the studio to making endless terrible sequels and remakes, until the author films to stop it, which I read King is trying to do with some of his classic books whose rights had been purchased to make film adaptations. I do wish I could hear Stephen King's thoughts on this film. Honestly, I wish I could have a movie night with Stephen King and talk about films together, what we love and what we hate about them, I highly respect his opinions on films, and I highly recommend you all reading his non-fiction book Danse Macabre, in which he talks about the history of horror in both literature and film. How about this, rather than investing over time watching Children Of The Corn (2009) as well as the terrible sequels to the original film, how about just go buy a copy of Danse Macabre and read that instead, it is a much better use of your time!
Comments
Post a Comment