Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Scott LeBrun The second (small) screen version of Stephen Kings' short story stars David Anders and Kandyse McClure as the couple Burt and Vicky Stanton. Burt & Vicky, whose relationship has turned utterly venomous, are travelling cross country. On their way through Nebraska, they run down a child in the road - only for Burt to realize that the kid was basically dead before they hit him; his throat was slashed. Making it to the nearby tiny town of Gatlin, they are soon confronting the towns' children, who have turned murderous and now pray to a different sort of God named "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".This version is scripted by King himself and director Donald P. Borchers, who'd produced the 1984 feature film. Unlike the original, "Children of the Corn" '09 is scrupulously faithful to the story. (Not that being faithful is always necessarily a good thing.) Burt and Vicky are NOT getting along to begin with, so their current situation only makes things worse. Problem with this is that you'll probably find it hard to care about this idiot couple. He comes off slightly better, but only because he's more low key and isn't nearly as insufferable as she is. He's still a stubborn dummy, of course, and their inability to get the Hell out of Dodge before the excrement hits the fan merely serves to seal their fate.One new wrinkle this time is to make Burt & Vicky an inter-racial couple, not that it actually adds anything to the story. That element is just sort of there. The King / Borchers teleplay also goes awfully heavy on the 'Nam parallels, making Burt a veteran who ends up flashing back to his time in the service. There's also some good old fashioned sex to spice things up a little.The original film may have been laughable, and ultimately cheesy, but at least it had more personality, and was more entertaining, than this. It's not good when you can't bring yourself to root for the protagonists. Anders and McClure do whatever they're capable of with these roles, but they're easily outshone by Daniel Newman, as Malachai, and Preston Bailey, as the intense boy preacher Issac. Still, these two kids aren't going to stick in your memory the way that Courtney Gains and John Franklin do.One worthy component is the music by Jonathan Elias (who scored the '84 film) and Nathaniel Morgan. Robert Kurtzman supplies the decent enough gore.This viewer didn't hate this adaptation nearly as much as some people, but will concede that the '84 film shows people a generally better time, despite its utterly goofy, upbeat ending.If you stick it out to the bitter end, there IS a final scene following the end credits.Six out of 10.

miked6022 This movie just fell flat. Although, it does resemble the Stephen King short story more than the 1984 original, especially the ending, it is not it's equal in overall quality and creepiness. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton put in Oscar worthy performances when compared to their counterparts here. The couple in this film have no on screen chemistry whatsoever, even for playing a couple with marital problems.The real difference between this film and the 1984 original, however, is with the children themselves. Courtney Gains and John Franklin became the gold standard for creepiness under the age of 18 when the original was released. Their mere presence on screen was enough to disturb, even before a word of old testament chanting was uttered. The children in this film are, in comparison, about as scary as parakeet. They invoke no sense of dread and look completely harmless.Perhaps the problem with this film, as well as the 1984 version, is that it is based on a short story. The tale is one of Stephen King's most disturbing and horrific. The images stay with the reader long after the short story is completed. However, there simply is not enough material to support a feature film. To get to the length of an average film, the 1984 original and this version added quite a bit of material which, honestly, watered down the original source material. The story would be better served in an anthology based film such as "Creepshow" or "Tales From the Darkside," where the source material could be given it's just due without a bunch of fluff used to lengthen the story to an hour and a half.

Reanna Keller I actually enjoyed this remake. Here is a review that is about the good stuff, not the bad.The remake is definitely stays faithful to the short story by King. The original is awesome but hardly follows the SS. This stays true and you will notice the similarities if you have read it.I think the acting is wonderful. The boy who plays Isaac is creepy and adorable at the same time. I believe Malachai is better this time around than the first. He seems a little more darker and more intimidating. Burt and Vicki player by David and Kandyse do a great job as a couple who are having problems. Their acting is believe able and nothing tacky.Being a big fan of COTC, I think this should not be looked over. It is way better than some of the sequels.

trick_morr 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.