Reviewed by Melissa Garza
I am generally a fan of the film adaptions of Stephen King’s work. The original version of “Children of the Corn” is one of my favorites. I love movies about strange children. Both versions of “The Village of the Damned” are great (the predecessor being the superior), “The Bad Seed” (1956), and “The Children” (1985). Films that portray cults are also among my top picks. “Race with the Devil” (1975) and “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968) cannot be surpassed.
As this adaption was a Sci-Fi original, my expectations were low. Generally, made-for-tv productions after 2000 leave a lot to be desired. That stated, the production had some good and many bad points. To start with the good, I’ll say that the overall look movie was reminiscent of earlier Stephen King adaptions like “The Stand” or “The Langoliers.” That alone is enough to provide a comfort level in longtime horror fans to watch with an open mind.
It opens in 1963, with a very young boy standing among the children reciting scripture. He promises the return of their corn crop and an end to the drought in exchange for the lives of all the adults within town. He reminds them that the God within the old testament or “He who walks behind the rows” called for such sacrifices and now the Lord has called to him and commanded the death of all over the age of 19.
Twelve years later, a young couple, Vietnam Veteran Burt (David Anders) and his very annoyingly argumentative and sadly stereotypical wife Vicky (Kandyse McClure) are driving through Nebraska when they strike a young child. I cannot stand how often the media portrays all African American women as the “angry black chick” who hates their spouse without justification. It is both sexist and racist. It reinforces the negative stereotype that the concerns of women are irrational and that black women in particular have a bad attitude.
Though, Burt isn’t the most affectionate man in the world, he hardly seems cruel in the opening scene, whereas Vicky is made to appear heartless and filled with unjustified attitude. During the first few moments, he is yelled at for turning the radio on too loud, singing, driving poorly, being in Vietnam, smoking dope, being a bad husband. Worse than any of that, when he hits the young boy, Vicky goes nuts on Burt. Rather than supporting him and trying to help, she insinuates that he must be happy that he murdered again and that his NRA buddies would be pleased. Burt ends up slapping her, and though I abhor violence to women, I would have slapped her myself. She seemed less concerned about checking on the child and more-so finding another reason to let in to Burt. Multiple times, she asks “why did I marry you?”
The one thing that salvaged the character is McClure’s performance. Though she spoke the words, she didn’t “sass” it up with hand gestures or head movements that further feed the stereotypes. She kept Vicky as classy as she could considering the dialogue she had to work with. More than that, in the scenes which showed the soft side of her character, she was certain to utilize emotion and give depth to an otherwise singular character.
Once Burt points out that the child’s throat had been slit, Vicky momentarily becomes willing to help until Vietnam is brought up again. Another commonality between time pieces from the 60s and 70s is to have one protagonist pro-war and the other against it. Burt remains mostly calm, takes his gun and starts heading into the cornfield while Vicky under his orders stays in the vehicle.
He returns a short time later, and they decide to drive to the next town –Gatlin. For no apparent reason, Vicky’s demeanor shifts and suddenly she’s super-helpful. Burt seems surprised as well, and says ‘thank you.’ The two put the radio on but only find a sermon being spouted from a child who denounces homosexuality, sinners, – all the normal rightwing religious rhetoric. Vicky gets disgusted and turns it off right as something is being mentioned about the corn. Burt questions it but lets it go.
As they drive further into Gatlin, signs about God are everywhere. The bible belt begins frustrating Vicky who was a pastor’s daughter. Her mood swings continue when she finds a religious corn icon that she considers blasphemous in the suitcase of the child they hit. She asks to get rid of it, but Burt says that they couldn’t as it may be evidence linking to the one who killed the young boy.
Meanwhile, Isaac (Preston Bailey) now leads the children. Sadly, the young actor has not quite honed all of his skills yet. He isn’t awful by any stretch but it does seem more that he is just reciting his lines rather than showing any emotion while delivering. As of fan of the original, I must say that John Franklin, gave a much more chilling and convincing portrayal.
While going inside a vacant restaurant, Burt joins Vicky in her worrying when he notices a calendar dated September 1963. Still hell-bent on getting the murdered child justice, he drives looking for a police station. Vicky wants to leave town and her bitchiness returns as she makes her demands. He outright refuses. Meanwhile, the children are on order from Isaac to ensure the ‘outlanders’ don’t leave town as they are certain to be the sacrifices.
Overall, the two lead actors do a good job with what they have. David Anders was well cast as the veteran who has seen it all and is hardly shocked by what is going on. Though, there are times that a level of surprise was warranted and it appeared that the character seemed to go in the direction of a Stone Cold Steve Austin (or for the younger generation – John Cena) vs. Children of the Corn direction, it was the writing and not Anders portrayal that forced the direction. The character was written as a badass and thus Anders did his best during the softer scenes with McClure to show the human side of him.
Likewise, Kandyse McClure really works with what was given to her. The role could have easily been made into a one dimensional character. The powers-that-be seem to believe that the only way a woman can offer an opinion or stand her ground is when it is in a completely disrespectful and degrading way. I know in a world of “Desperate Housewives,” and “The Kardashians” that women in “reality” are shown to be spoiled brats and incapable of having an intelligent conversation without making a power-play. In reality shows that may be the case, but I know in my own life – and I hope with the majority of humanity that marital discourse is much healthier and civilized than that. I would like to see that shown in film as well. I’m not saying to remove the drama but to simply have the arguments based in a more realistic situation than having his head bit off because he’s singing too loudly.
There are plenty of things for married couples to bicker about….money, friends, hobbies, work or lack thereof, children, etc. To show those types of conversations take place in a natural way – even if raised voices are utilized, the audience will be thankful. It’s something they can relate to and more importantly not feel insulted by.
To be honest, it has been years – 19 years in fact, since I read “Children of the Corn” and I remember far too little to know how much creative license was taken in this adaption. I will say that in the 1980s version, Linda Hamilton’s Vicky seemed a hell of a lot more rational. I think McClure is at least as good of an actress as Hamilton but that the character was too shallow and made it more difficult to take note of her talent.
Overall, the movie is watchable. It is far from great and possibly one of the worst Stephen King adaptions made. I would say the remake of Carrie is on the same level.
Scared Stiff Rating: 3/10
