Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[shadow1]

Leprechaun in the Hood (2000) - 6/10

Three aspiring rappers are hunted by an evil leprechaun after stealing his magic flute.

Anthony Montgomery, Rashaan Nall, and Red Grant star as Postmaster P, Stray Bullet, and Butch (respectively), three friends who are prospective rap artists. After a disastrous meeting with record producer Mac Daddy (Ice-T), the friends plan to rob him in order to fund new music equipment. Unfortunately for the trio, they're unaware that 20 years earlier Mac Daddy had a run in with Lubdan (Warwick Davis), an evil leprechaun who lies dormant in his office...

Leprechaun in the Hood was directed by Rob Spera, and written by Doug Hall and Jon Huffman. The fifth entry in the Leprechaun series and third that went direct-to-video, the film was originally based around the concept of "Leprechaun in the White House". However, according to star Warwick Davis, plans changed after a survey showed the largest audience demographic for the series were African Americans. How does Leprechaun in the Hood fare?

What the heck, this was actually decent? I previously mentioned I thought Leprechaun 4: In Space deserved more notoriety because of how terrible it is. Part of the reason it doesn't is likely because this Leprechaun entry is already infamous with horror fans due to its ridiculous concept of sending a horror icon to the hood. As such, I went in with very low expectations.

However, Leprechaun in the Hood didn't live up to its infamy. The film has a surprising amount of strengths, the principal of which being the well written and acted characters. Butch, Postmaster P, and Stray Bullet are easily the best protagonists up to this point of the series. They're nuanced, and the film does a good job of establishing each of their unique motivations and character traits. The movie even has some form of subtext, and there are a couple scenes with emotional punch. No, I didn't hit my head - I'm really talking about Leprechaun in the Hood!

I also give this movie credit for actually being somewhat tied to the previous sequels. While there isn't direct continuity with the story, the medallion from Leprechaun 3 (1995) that turns Lubdan into a statue makes a return and is again a key part of the plot. There is also a homage to a notable scene from Leprechaun 2 (1994) involving a safe. It might not sound like much, but it was nice to finally see some connection between the films.

Ironically, the film's strength of being decently written seems to come at the expense of certain factors this series has usually done well. The kills in Leprechaun in the Hood are watered down, sometimes happening off screen and other times occurring in extreme close-up where we can't see too much. The violence we do see well usually involves the leprechaun magically blowing huge holes in people. I am not sure how he got this power, but it's his trademark execution in this movie, and it gets stale quick.

Speaking of Lubdan, Warwick Davis has much better material to work with here than in the previous film, as the leprechaun is extremely rhymey and even gets to rap at one point. However, it could be argued that despite ample screen time, his role in the events of the film is minimized. Lubdan almost feels like the character Beetlejuice at times; while clearly an antagonist, the protagonists are also dealing with Ice-T's evil character, and Lubdan is inadvertently able to get them out of a few jams. With that being said, if the movie rewrote things to turn Lubdan into a non-magical drug dealer, the story could still work.

Despite my praise, I have to acknowledge other problems with Leprechaun in the Hood. Some of the editing is bad during action sequences, particularly early in the movie. These instances have motion interpolation (aka "soap opera effect") and just look cheap and non-theatrical. Furthermore, Leprechaun in the Hood has some filler scenes involving the three protagonists. As much as I liked these characters, keep in mind this is supposed a Leprechaun horror movie. Lubdan-less exposition scenes in a film that is already light on kills hurts the final product, in my opinion.

Overall, Leprechaun in the Hood is a solid entry in the Leprechaun series. While far from a great film, it's competently made and has the best writing of the first five movies. I was on the fence with my rating, but am going with a light 6 after seeing this film has a criminally low 3.8 on IMDB and 4.4 (equivalent) on Letterboxd. As I'm going against the consensus (which I am inclined to believe may partially be formed on this movie's title alone), take this review with a huge grain of salt. Leprechaun in the Hood was made for $1.4M, but I could not find any earnings or sales information.

 

[PK Cronin]

Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996) - 3/10

An evil leprechaun stalks the crew of a spaceship.

Warwick Davis returns as Lubdan the leprechaun, who in the year 2096 finds himself on a foreign planet courting a princess named Zarina (Rebekah Carlton). A group of space marines - including Brooks (Brent Jasmer) and Sticks (Miguel A. Nunez Jr.) - and a doctor named Tina (Jessica Collins) touch down on the planet, rescuing the priciness. Not wanting to lose his chance to be a king, Lubdan boards the space ship and rains hell on the crew...

Leprechaun 4: In Space was again directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith, and written by Dennis Pratt. Following the success of Leprechaun 3 (1995) on the home video market, a fourth Leprechaun film went into production with a series high budget of $1.6M. How does this second direct-to-video Leprechaun movie fare?

Ay caramba. Leprechaun 4: In Space, originally conceptualized as an Apollo 13 (1995) spoof, is instead a painful Alien (1979) rip-off. I use the word "rip-off" instead of "clone" because this film doesn't feel like a homage, parody, or that it's trying to capitalize on Alien's popularity. Instead, the movie is telling its own (stupid) story, but because it's a "haunted house in space" feels the need to include numerous story beats from Alien, no matter how out of place they are.

The original story Leprechaun 4 tries to tell is extremely underdeveloped. The movie doesn't even attempt to explain why Lubdan is in space; it's the future, he's there... just go with it. Similarly, the motivations of the space marines are murky at best. All we know is they're working on contract for the bizarre scientist Dr. Mittenhand (Guy Siner) - this film's comic relief - and end up being stalked throughout their spaceship by Lubdan. You'd think this setup might lead to some horror situations, but it mostly leads to gun fights between the leprechaun and the marines... which are way less fun than they sound. By the way, at no point do any of the characters refer to Lubdan as a leprechaun, instead always referring to him as an "alien".

Speaking of Leprechaun 4's characters, they stink. Tina - played by Jessica Collins, aka Jackie Denardo from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - starts off as the outsider we're supposed to associate with, but quickly turns cheek and becomes a stuck up jerk. Brent Jasmer's Brooks doesn't have much to do aside from showing off his muscles, and Warwick Davis has his worst material of the franchise to work with. The film hands most of the comedy load to the aforementioned Dr. Mittenhand character, but he also has bad material and is incredibly cheesy. At least it was nice to see Miguel A. Nunez Jr. (Friday the 13th: A New Beginning & The Return of the Living Dead), and he had a funny line or two.

Last but not least, Leprechaun 4's costumes and effects are unacceptable. The marines wear what look to be motorcycle helmets with visors, as well as cheap cloth vests with plastic bits sewn on. Lubdan looks screwed up too, with grey coloring around his eyes that ruin the illusion created by his strong leprechaun makeup. The special effects are consistently atrocious, highlighted by a scene where Lubdan increases in size via an effect that looks like a jpeg image being stretched. Additionally, the film is largely devoid of the cheapest effect possible: blood. There's a rip off sequence of the famous Alien chest burster scene, yet there isn't a spec of red on screen.

Overall, Leprechaun 4 is space junk. As much as the original Leprechaun film bores me to tears, the objectively worse Leprechaun 4: In Space is like watching an adult film without the sex. Made for $1.6M, I could not find any earnings or sales information for the film. Logic suggests it did not sell as well as Leprechaun 3 (1995) however, as the Leprechaun series took a short break following the release of this film, eventually returning in the year 2000.

This is the review I've been waiting for. Thank you.

 

[shadow1]

Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood (2003) - 4/10

Four friends discover a pot of gold, accidentally unearthing an evil leprechaun in the process.

Laz Alonzo, Sherrie Jackson, Page Kennedy, and Tangi Miller star as a group of friends who discover a pot of gold hidden underneath an abandoned youth center. Splitting the money equally, the four's lives improve dramatically as they're able to pay off debts and make extravagant purchases. However, all good things must end, and they soon find their personal relationships suffering. Much worse than that, the group is attacked by an evil leprechaun (Warwick Davis), who is hellbent on getting his gold back...

Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood was written and directed by Steven Ayromlooi. Following the release of Leprechaun in the Hood (2000), Trimark Pictures was purchased by Lionsgate, and Back 2 Tha Hood marks the first release from that studio. "In the Hood" director Rob Spera was originally attached, wanting to set the events on a beach or tropical island. However, studio executives wanted to keep the series set in the inner-city, so Spera left the project. Back 2 Tha Hood, the sixth entry in the series, would also mark the final appearance (to date) of series star Warwick Davis. How does the final entry in the initial Leprechaun run fare?

The quote the Irish: it's shite. Despite its title implying otherwise, Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood has no connection to Leprechaun in the Hood (2000), outside of being set in urban Los Angeles. This time our cast of characters include a beauty salon tech, a college student, a drug dealer, and a stoner. Frankly, these characters stink. Despite the performers themselves going on to have long acting careers, the material just isn't there for them in this film. That's a huge problem because Back 2 Tha Hood focuses heavily on the relationships between these four, and it's insanely melodramatic. We don't even have much reason to care about these protagonists, and the movie takes the drama between them so damn seriously. In my previous review I mentioned how that film had a "soap opera" visual effect during action fights. Well, this movie just flat out feels like a soap opera.

As far as the story goes, Back 2 Tha Hood's premise is stupid, and rewrites Lubdan's back story for the hundredth time. Basically, a priest finds his pot of gold, he and the leprechaun duke it out, the gold ends up buried until our protagonists find it, and then the events of this movie play out. There is also a fortune teller (Donzaleigh Abernathy) subplot which is stupid and hokey, and clashes with the melodramatics of our character's interpersonal relationships. That's somewhat how the movie is in general, as the scenes with the Leprechaun are more cartoonish than usual. Speaking of which, it's a poor swan song for Warwick Davis. This is possibly his most lackluster turn as Lubdan due to mediocre dialogue and underwhelming kills. I almost wrote "a low body count", but this movie actually has a high body count. It's just that most of the deaths come in bunches, pertain the meaningless side characters, and occur in generic fashion.

Add it all up, and you get a boring movie. No, it's not a complete disaster and it's more competently made than Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996). But I have to admit I fell asleep halfway through watching Back 2 Tha Hood, and a nearly dozed off again towards the end of my second viewing. Compared to its predecessor, the original "Hood" movie had better characters, a better narrative, and struck a good balance between being cartoonish and having a message. Meanwhile, Back 2 Tha Hood features needlessly sappy scenes juxtaposed against (mostly) unfunny and uncreative death scenes. It's a movie that feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be, and ends up being two really crappy things instead.

Overall, the leprechaun should not have gone back to the hood. I'm personally disappointed with Leprechaun Back To Da Hood due to the false optimism my enjoyment of its predecessor gave me. This direct-to-video sequel was made for $1.4M, but I could not find any earnings or sales information. However, logic suggests it did not sell well, as the Leprechaun series fell into an 11 year hiatus following its release.

 

[shadow1]

Leprechaun: Origins (2014) - 1/10

Four American college students backpacking in Ireland are hunted by an evil creature.

Stephanie Bennett, Andrew Dunbar, Brendan Fletcher, and Melissa Roxburgh star as group of friends vacationing in the Irish countryside. While visiting a bar, a group of locals informs them about a historic cavern they can explore, and offer the friends lodging at a nearby cottage. However, when night falls the students find the cottage doors are locked from the outside, and are soon attacked by a leprechaun (Dylan "Hornswaggle" Postl)...

Leprechaun: Origins was directed by Zach Lipovsky and written by Harris Wilkinson. The seventh film in the Leprechaun series, the movie was produced by WWE Studios as a vehicle for wrestling star Hornswoggle, who takes over here for series lead Warwick Davis. It was also the first Leprechaun film to receive a theatrical release (albeit a limited one) since Leprechaun 2 (1994). How does it fare?

Time to turn up the diarrhea dial. Leprechaun: Origin is a sequel in name only, giving us a non-comedic horror movie with no ties to the original series outside of a homage or two. As a concept I think this had potential, as the Leprechaun franchise isn't exactly on the Mount Rushmore of horror. For full disclosure, I was aware a Leprechaun sequel existed where the creature was more animalistic, but that was the extent of my knowledge.

Having now seen Leprechaun: Origins, I can only ask: WTF is this? This was shown in theaters? Ignoring the fact it's supposed to be from the Leprechaun franchise and judging it based on its own merits, Leprechaun: Origins is atrocious. The film plays out like a Wish.com version of The Evil Dead (1981), with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) remake sprinkled in. The premise is simple: our bland protagonist outsiders end up at a rural cottage, they're attacked by a gargoyle-looking creature, and find a book in the basement that alludes to the fact it's a leprechaun.

No, that doesn't sound like the worst horror plot ever, but the execution crushes any hopes this movie had of being tolerable. It's impossible to feel a connection with the protagonists because of how underdeveloped they are, and I am convinced at least some of this film's dialogue was ad libbed because so little of it is plot relevant. The lighting in Leprechaun: Origins is overexposed and washed out, reminding me of a different bad movie, the I Spit on Your Grave (2010) remake. Furthermore, the cinematography is terrible. There is a lot of shaky cam, combined with scenes that are intentionally blurry or framed so close that we can't properly see what's going on. At first I thought they were trying to conceal the look of the leprechaun, but no: these were creative decisions. As a result, the film flat out doesn't look cinematic.

Moving on to the leprechaun itself, what a travesty. It's a generic horror monster that only grunts and groans, looking like Nosferatu with the face of a vampire bat. Additionally, it uses Predator (1987)-style thermal version to hunt its prey, which is very stupid. Even worse, we don't know exactly what it's hunting its prey for! At first, we're led to believe it's gold, and the leprechaun confiscates miscellaneous jewelry worn by our protagonists. Later, there's dialogue that says the leprechaun "needs to feed", and it does indeed devour some people, completely ignoring gold. Yet later again, the creature has some kills which are standard slasher movie fare, murdering people simply to show off this film's practical effects (which are decent, all things considered). Where does the "Origins" subtitle come into play? Going in I thought the film might be a period piece, but instead it's set in present day and can't even establish a proper motivation for its titular character.

As I mentioned earlier, comparing Leprechaun: Origins to the rest of the franchise is an exercise in futility, as it's dramatically different from its predecessors. However, it's worth noting that director Zach Lipovsky reportedly despised the original movies, allegedly saying theatergoers would ask "What was the name of that other guy nobody cares about played the old one? Nobody cares." Lipovsky's arrogance is ironic, considering his horrendous movie adds considerable shine to the rest of the series.

Overall...in the land of green, where tales are spun, there's a movie about a leprechaun; but let me tell ya, it's not a delight, for "Origins" turned out to be pure shite! Despite having a limited theatrical release, I could not find budget or earnings information for Leprechaun: Origins. However, due to its poor critical (and presumably commercial) reception, plans for a direct follow-up sequel were cancelled.

 

[BostonBob]

A Chinese version of Anaconda is being released. Why ???? Why not !!!!!

 

[shadow1]

Leprechaun Returns (2018) - 6/10

25 years after his attack on a rural farmhouse, an evil leprechaun returns to stalk the new inhabitants.

Taylor Spreitler stars as Lila, a college student who is meeting up with her sorority to greenify an old farmhouse. Lila hitches a ride from Ozzie (Mark Holton), a local who survived an encounter with an evil leprechaun at the farmhouse 25 years earlier. Lila reveals her mother Tory (previously played by Jennifer Aniston) used to own the farmhouse, but left the area and has struggled with mental health ever since. Though Ozzie acknowledges knowing Tory, he does not mention their incident with the leprechaun. After Lila meets up with her sorority (including San Bennett and Pepi Sonuga), the group is suddenly attacked by evil leprechaun Lubdan (Linden Porco), who is intent on reclaiming his gold...

Leprechaun Returns was directed by Steven Kostanski and written by Suzanne Keilly. The eighth Leprechaun movie, Leprechaun Returns is a made-for-TV film produced by the SyFy network. Series star Warwick Davis and original Leprechaun star Jennifer Aniston were given offers to reprise their roles, but both declined. How does the most recent film in the Leprechaun series fare?

It's decent... so by default is one of the best films in the series! Leprechaun Returns is a direct sequel to the first Leprechaun, completely ignoring the rest of the films. This is not necessarily a controversial choice; as I mentioned in previous reviews, there is much debate as to whether Lubdan is the same leprechaun in each of the sequels, as his origin story and character traits seem to change constantly between movies.

However, just because it's not a controversial choice doesn't mean it's necessarily a great one. The original 1993 Leprechaun film is one of the weakest in the series, and its farmhouse location is very nondescript and unmemorable. In addition, bringing back Ozzie and making Jennifer Aniston's Tory character a huge part of narrative (despite her being absent from the film) feel like Leprechaun Returns is too desperately trying to be nostalgic for a film I doubt many of its audience have seen.

That context aside, Leprechaun Returns is a return to form for the series. Because of how different (read: horrible) Leprechaun: Origins (2014) was, this was the first "traditional" Leprechaun movie since 2003's Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood. It definitely feels like a modern take on the series, as the comedy is meta and the violence is over the top. Despite being a made-for-TV movie, Leprechaun Returns is the goriest film in the series by far, and has a number of kills that were fun. Its comedy/gore mix reminds me a lot of the Ash vs. Evil Dead (2015-2018) TV series, with Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022) being another comparable.

With that said, the college students are generic protagonists and are no deeper than their dominant character trait (i.e. the jock, the nerd, the party animal, the slut, etc). Linden Porco gives a good performance as Lubdan, though his dialogue can be a mixed bag at times. A lot of his lines are plays off of other famous movie quotes, and he giggles a little too much. Lubdan also tends to monologue a lot when no one is around, which just feels off.
The story also has some issues, with the events surrounding the leprechaun's resurrection making little sense, and a subplot involving a ghost which you pretty much just have to roll with. At the end of the day, this film is popcorn entertainment; kills and laughs first, characters and story second.

Overall, Leprechaun Returns is an okay horror comedy. It stands out in the series due to the over-the-top nature of its gore and humor, but also does a good job sticking to its roots. As far as made-for-TV movies go, this one is pretty solid. Made for $1.5M, Leprechaun Returns was released for video-on-demand in 2018 and premiered on the SyFy network in 2019.

---

And that wraps up the Leprechaun series. It ended up being much better than I thought it would, while still not being very good. My ranking:

1. Leprechaun in the Hood (2000) - The best overall story
2. Leprechaun 2 (1994) - Best use of the leprechaun horror villain concept
3. Leprechaun Returns (2018) - Pretty fun bloodbath
4. Leprechaun 3 (1995) - Fun at times but flawed
5. Leprechaun (1993) - Snoozefest
6. Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood (2003) - Also a snoozefest, but with melodrama
7. Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996) - Bad movie marathon trash
8. Leprechaun: Origins (2014) - Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn (1984) - 4/10

After an accident, a young couple searches for help in a town taken over by a cult of children.

Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton as Burt and Vicky, who are traveling through Nebraska on their way to Seattle for Burt's new job. While driving down an isolated rural road, a young boy jumps out from the cornfields in front of their car. They head to the nearby city of Gatlin for help, but find it to be a ghost town, populated only by children in a demonic cult who murder anyone over the age of 18...

Children of the Corn was directed by Fritz Kiersch, and written by George Goldsmith. The film is based on the Stephen King short story of the same name, and there was significant discordance behind the scenes after King's own screenplay was rejected. King reportedly received $500K for the use of his story, bringing this film's budget down to a meager $800K. How does it fare?

I watched this movie for the first time a few years ago. I thought I bought it in some random digital 10-pack, didn't remember reviewing it on this site, and couldn't remember much of what happened. It turns out I was wrong on the first two points, and having watched Children of the Corn again, understand the third point. So while I reviewed this movie before, bear with me as I take another crack at it.

The film is very, very slow. Set almost exclusively during broad daylight, protagonists Burt and Vicky spend a lot of time driving around discussing their situation...but this isn't True Detective (2014-2024), and these two aren't Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey. I actually think Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton give decent performances, but their characters are extremely underwritten, with the thin back story about Burt being a relocating physician playing no role in the main events. And where the heck is their luggage, aren't these people supposed to be moving? I mentioned it last time, but for most of the movie there is nothing stopping Burt and Vicky from just driving away.

The scenes with the 'children of the corn' are really boring. They're almost exclusively exposition scenes where they argue amongst themselves in a way that is supposed to be a story dump for the audience. And boring is really operative word when it comes to this movie. There are situations that could be suspenseful or creepy, like when Burt and Vicky explore the abandoned town, or at one point when the two get lost in the cornfields. However, everything is directed in such a milquetoast way that the movie is a drag to get through. At the risk of sounding like I have narcolepsy, it took me two tries to get through Children of the Corn during this rewatch, and I still fell asleep the second time and had to go back and rewatch the final 20 minutes.

Without spoiling it, the film seems to only exist for its final 10 minutes. While this ending of the movie is far from cinematic gold (I wasn't even conscious for it the first time), it's the only time Children of the Corn feels like a horror movie and is somewhat effective. In hindsight, it feels like the rest of the film is mostly filler just to set up its ending. Though you could technically describe any movie like that, let me be more specific: the filmmakers could've deleted almost every character and scene and still ended up in the same spot.

Overall, Children of the Corn is an insomnia cure. However, likely based on the strength of Stephen King's name, the movie earned $14.5M against its $800K budget. Because Children of the Corn has significantly higher ratings on IMDB (5.7) and Letterboxd (2.7/5), take this review with a grain of salt (or should I say sand, because the sandman will come for you if you watch this movie).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

At the risk of sounding like I have narcolepsy, it took me two tries to get through Children of the Corn during this rewatch, and I still fell asleep the second time and had to go back and rewatch the final 20 minutes.
[...]
Overall, Children of the Corn is an insomnia cure.

I'm trying to watch the Fallout series on Prime and feel the same about that. Perfect stuff to watch in bed.

 

[CDJ]

Saw Abigail

Solid flick. Pretty funny. Good gore. A fun watch. I’d go 7.5/10

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992) - 3/10

A reporter and his son investigate mass deaths in the small town of Gatlin.

Terence Knox stars as Garrett, a sensationalist reporter. Two days after the events of the last film, dozens of adult bodies are found in the quiet town of Gatlin. Garrett is trying to get to the bottom of what happened, and has brought along teenage son Danny (Paul Scherrer), whom he has a poor relationship with. Meanwhile, the surviving children from Gatlin are relocated to nearby town Hemingford, where the killings begin again...

Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice was directed by David Price, and written by Gilbert Adler and A. L. Katz. Made eight years after its predecessor and filmed in only 14 days, the movie was the final Children of the Corn movie to be released in theaters for nearly 30 years. How does it fare?

It's a hot mess. Unlike its very slow predecessor, Children of the Corn II feels like a more standard horror movie, in a cookie cutter sorta way. There are more characters, more varied settings, and more kills - a couple of which are pretty decent. You might think this would set the movie up to be mediocre horror fare, but you'd be wrong.

The first problem is the characters: protagonists and 'children of the corn' alike both suck. Garrett and Danny are at each other's throats the whole movie, which is not only annoying to listen to but actively makes you dislike them. The opening act sets Garrett up as a slimy tabloid reporter, but the movie seems to abandon this character arc, as he is a completely normal person sans the times he's being a jerk to his son. The 'corn' children are also horrible, with laughably bad dialogue that is somehow even worse than the original film's.

Children of the Corn II also has this weird thing going on where it feels like a family movie 75% of the time. The music sounds like it's from Lassie (1994), and there are multiple romantic subplots that take center stage at times. We eventually get zapped back to reality with a death scene of a miscellaneous character, or more awful monologuing from the corn children, but overall the entire movie just feels off. For good measure, there are a couple comic relief characters that don't fit the rest of the movie, and one humorous death that comes out of nowhere. The genre blending in this movie was very poorly executed.

As for the plot, it makes little sense. It's not confusing in the sense you can't follow what's going on, but it's constantly contradicting itself. At first, there's an unseen killer with red Predator (1987) vision (except it looks like a watercolor filter in Microsoft Paint). Then, the antagonists shift back to the corn children. Children of the Corn II then tries to explain the murderous phenomena in a scientific way, but quickly scraps it and goes back to a supernatural one, even having a random scene with a ghost. It's absolutely all over the place.

Overall, Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice is bad. If you watch this movie with only partial attention, you made be lulled into thinking it's better than it is due to decent kills. However, because even the tiniest amount of scrutiny makes the entire plot unravel, I have to bump this film down a star. Children of the Corn II earned $6.9M against its $900K budget.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

As for the plot, it makes little sense. It's not confusing in the sense you can't follow what's going on, but it's constantly contradicting itself. At first, there's an unseen killer with red Predator (1987) vision (except it looks like a watercolor filter in Microsoft Paint). Then, the antagonists shift back to the corn children. Children of the Corn II then tries to explain the murderous phenomena in a scientific way, but quickly scraps it and goes back to a supernatural one, even having a random scene with a ghost. It's absolutely all over the place.

As I really disliked the original one, I don't think I've ever seen any of the sequels or remakes. You made this one sound kind of interesting - as a Z-movie, this description is just a big tease.

I really didn't think you were going for the whole thing. You know you set yourself for 11 garbage films?

 

[Satans Hockey]

Longlegs is my most anticipated horror movie of the year. The teaser trailers which are actually teaser trailers have been really done well and they aren't even showing that Nicholas Cage is in this...

 

[Osprey]

Long Legs would be a great title for a trashy horror movie about street walkers who turn into ceiling walkers. I'd watch that.

 

[shadow1]

As I really disliked the original one, I don't think I've ever seen any of the sequels or remakes. You made this one sound kind of interesting - as a Z-movie, this description is just a big tease.

I really didn't think you were going for the whole thing. You know you set yourself for 11 garbage films?

My suffering will be legendary even in hell.

 

[CDJ]

Longlegs is my most anticipated horror movie of the year. The teaser trailers which are actually teaser trailers have been really done well and they aren't even showing that Nicholas Cage is in this...

yeah I can’t wait for that to come out, looks creepy af

Cage has been killing it lately

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995) - 6/10

Two children cult members from rural Gatlin Nebraska are adopted by a family in Chicago Illinois.

Daniel Cerny and Ron Melendez star as Eli and Joshua, two step brothers who survived the massacre in Gatlin, Nebraska. They're relocated to Chicago and adopted by agricultural salesman William (Jim Metzler) and Amanda (Nancy Lee Grahn). Eli, who is still a follower of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows", grows his own cornfield and plans to recruit followers in the urban city...

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest was directed by James D. R. Hickox and written by Dode B. Levenson. As they had done with many other horror franchises, Dimension Films purchased the rights to the Children of the Corn series and this marks the studio's first release. Children of the Corn III is also the first film in the franchise to be released direct-to-video. How does it fare?

It's decent! Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest isn't particularly original, as sending horror characters to unfamiliar locations has been done to death. And because this is non-theatrical low budget horror, it's suburban Chicago, so don't expect many familiar sights. Further cementing its unoriginality, this film utilizes the "evil adopted child" trope, but does nothing to subvert the audience's expectations. Considering Eli and Joshua are original characters, the filmmakers could've toyed around with the idea of "which one is evil?", or perhaps make it seem like one child is evil only for them both to be evil. Nothing like that happens here: Eli is evil, Joshua is as dense as lead and somehow doesn't realize it.

Uninspired storytelling aside, Children of the Corn III has some things going for it. The performances all around were pretty decent, with Daniel Cerny's Eli being by far the least annoying lead evil child up to this point in the series. Unlike previous movies, Eli has mostly non-cringey dialogue, and though it took a while for the movie to flush out his motivations, they made sense in the end. Additionally, instead of just spouting off religious-sounding mumbo jumbo, Eli actually gets to show off his evilness in the form of some memorable kills.

That brings me to the best part of this movie: the gore. Shockingly, Children of the Corn III is very gory, and the quality of those effects is well above average - borderline great. The kills are of the over-the-top variety, with the greenery and corn itself even getting into the action, naturally reminding me a lot of The Evil Dead (1981). Unfortunately, another thing that reminded me of The Evil Dead series was the truly horrendous stop motion used towards the end of the film, which is guaranteed to take you out of the movie. There were also awful computer effects peppered throughout the film for good measure.

Memorable gore can't cover for everything though. In addition to the generic premise and stop motion I mentioned, there are plot holes the audience needs to look past, as well as some annoying retconning to include Eli and Joshua in key events from the last two movies. Additionally, Eli's motivations take a really long time to develop. For most of the movie it seemed like his only goal was to be evil, and he breaks some of the established lore in the process (most notably killing people under the age of 18). Considering how bad the last two movies were I'm not sure how much that last point matters, but I digress.

Overall, Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest is a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. It's easily the best of the first three Children of the Corn movies, and is a movie I'd consider rewatching in the future due to its memorable kills. I could not find any budget or earnings information for Children of the Corn III.

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996) - 5/10

A mysterious sickness spreads through a small town, turning the children violent.

Naomi Watts stars as Grace, a medical student who returns to her childhood home in Grand Island, Nebraska. Her mother June (Karen Black) is suffering from severe anxiety following a series of recurring nightmares, so Grace tries to help her get back on her feet by taking care of younger siblings James (Mark Salling) and Margaret (Jamie Renée Smith). Grace also returns to her old job helping out at the local doctors office, and they need all the help they can get: a rash of fevers has broken out amongst the town's children, turning them homocidal...

Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering was directed by Greg Spence, and written by Spence and Stephen Berger. It was the second Children of the Corn movie distributed by Dimension Films, and also the second released directly to video. How does it fare?

It's a Children of the Corn movie... kinda? Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering has no connections to previous films, and though set in Nebraska, it's not set in the series "home base" city of Gatlin. We instead get new lore, where a series of fevers tied to a dark town secret slowly begins to turn the town's children into murderous cultists.

Frankly, this story doesn't make a lick of sense. There is no explanation or justification why Karen Black's character is targeted by recurring nightmares, nor is it explained how the fever spreads. Children of the Corn IV doesn't really have a "big bad" antagonist and instead focuses on the race to cure the children, so when the storytelling isn't there, the entire movie crumbles. The film tries to remedy this with a big exposition dump towards the end of the movie, and it's done in the clunkiest way possible: two previously unestablished characters who know the answer to everything give a tedious explanation of what's going on, and promptly leave the movie just as quickly as they entered it.

Children of the Corn IV also has half a dozen fake-out dream sequences, which got old and became predicable immediately. There is also a subplot about a dad played by Donald Atkins who is trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. Though I kinda liked his character, this side plot gave way for more bizarre storytelling; something to do with mercury, so the characters coat their ammunition in mercury, werewolf silver bullet style...?

It's a shame the storytelling is nonsensical, because Children of the Corn IV isn't that horrible. It's definitely better than the first two thanks to a variety of factors, the first of which being decent gore and kills. Future Academy Award nominee Naomi Watts gives a good lead performance and her character had a decent amount of depth. The film also has good pacing and was a breeze to watch. Kudos to the filmmakers on that one, because they very clearly had a popsicle stick budget, evidenced by painfully limited sets. There's a scene where Watts has to drive her siblings to school, and the movie doesn't even show the building; we only see the three characters in her car, with cornfields behind them. I'll hold off on giving the filmmakers too much credit though, because like other Dimension Films movie Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995), this film has horrible epilepsy-inducing flashing jump cuts thrown at you constantly.

Overall, Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering is mediocre. I'm giving it a generous "5" because I think it's a watchable movie that has some things going for it, but make no mistake: it has significant issues. I could not find any budget or earnings information for Children of the Corn IV, but IMDB states Naomi Watts earned a paltry $5,000 for her work in the lead role.

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998) - 4/10

A group of college students on a road trip break down in a town with a murderous cult of children.

This ensemble cast features Alexis Arquette, Stacy Galina, Eva Mendes, and Greg Vaughan as a group of friends on a trip to spread the ashes of their recently deceased classmate. However, the students break down in the rural town of Divinity Falls, Nebraska. After learning that the local tow truck is out of commission and having missed the only bus out of town for the day, the group decides to squat in an abandoned house overnight. However, they're being watched by a fanatical cult of children that believe anyone in their town over the age of 18 must die...

Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror was written and directed by Ethan Wiley. Originally called "Field of Screams", the film's name was changed to avoid being associated with the Scream franchise, as Wiley wanted to go back to the original Stephen King continuity and focus on the "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" lore. How does it fare?

It's not good, but I don't completely hate it. Despite being the fourth film of the series released during the 1990's, Children of the Corn V stands out as "painfully 90's". The fashion, the tropey characterizations, and the inclusion of star Eva Mendes makes this film blend in with other horror movies of the time, albeit with a lower quality.

What about it makes it lower quality? Almost everything. The film uses a lot of really unique camera angles, and though I thought some of them worked, a lot of them didn't and made Children of the Corn V feel uncinematic. I have a high tolerance for bad acting, but this movie has some really rough performances. The film actually has a decent cast, including supporting roles from David Carradine, Kane Hodder, and Fred Williamson, but still manages to have very wooden acting, and one person in particular completely phoned in their performance. The combination of the avant-garde visuals and subpar performances make Children of the Corn V flat out feel like a student film at times. It's also worth noting the movie is crazy short, coming in a mere 83 minutes.

Additionally, Children of the Corn V is very melodramatic, with a lot of tension between the characters over the loss of their recently deceased friend. These scenes do not work at all; they're too superficial, and the audience doesn't know or care about the dead friend. The movie does something I liked in explaining how the children become indoctrinated, but manages to butcher it completely with inconsistencies. Some children join the cult because of a tough family life, which was completely relatable and sympathetic. However, we see instances where children join the cult after being attacked by terrible special effects, with one character even gaining telekinetic powers... which the movie establishes early on but never goes back to for some reason. In the most cringeworthy sequence, we see a character read from the cult's book, which is enough for them to do a complete 180, becoming a mindless zombie and following the cult's demands in the most extreme way possible.

Okay, so there's plenty of bad to talk about, but what does the movie do well? Firstly, though I cited them as a negative, some of the experimental visuals do work, and that helps to make Children of the Corn V stand out a bit from the rest of the series, as its defining characteristic (for better or worse) it its visuals. Also, the premise is decent enough, and the film tries to go back to the original Stephen King lore, which is a plus considering other series sequels have felt directionless. The gore and kills are also okay, though they're a step down in creativity from Children of the Corn IV (1996).

Overall, Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror is a flawed movie. I considered scoring it a "3", but I give the filmmakers bonus points for trying something different visually while simultaneously trying to get the series lore back on track, though the execution was a mixed bag to say the least. Children of the Corn V, the third film in the series released direct-to-video, had the highest budget of the first five movies at $1.65M, but I could not find any earnings or sales information.

 

[Osprey]

shadow1, singlehandedly keeping the horror movie thread alive (on life support) into May, about as far away from October as you can get.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Doing god's work.

 

[BostonBob]

shadow1, singlehandedly keeping the horror movie thread alive (on life support) into May, about as far away from October as you can get.

He might be the one on life support after trying to get through the entire Children of the Corn franchise.

 

[shadow1]

Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999) - 4/10

A teenager travels to the ghost town of Gatlin to find her birthmother, but the town's evil cult leader awakens from a years-long coma to resume his nefarious activities.

Natalie Ramsey stars as Hannah, a teenager who was born in Gatlin, Nebraska during the mid-1980's when a cult of children murdered all the adults. Searching for her birthmother, Hannah is accosted by the bizarre locals - including a doctor (Stacy Keach), local sheriff (Alix Koromzay), nurse's aid (Paul Popowhich), and truck driver (Nancy Allen). Some of the townies are trying to force Hannah to leave Gatlin, while others are strangely trying to convince her to stay. Meanwhile, false prophet Isaac (John Franklin), the head child of the original "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" cult and long believed to be dead, awakens from a 15 year coma and begins assembling a new cult of children...

Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return was directed by Kari Skogland, and written by Tim Sulka and (Isaac himself) John Franklin. Skogland, a non-horror movie fan, set to make the movie more grounded by avoiding the use of computer effects. She also wanted focus on the characters from the original film, ignoring the sequels which came after. How does it fare?

It's probably one of the weirder Children of the Corn movies, while still having a lot of the negative series hallmarks. Children of the Corn 666 is a plot heavy movie, and let me tell you: it's convoluted as heck. The film dives in to the "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" lore established in the 1984 film, but does so in a very bloated way. I wouldn't call the film confusing, but it really demands your full attention while doing little to earn it.

Like the other films in this series, Children of the Corn 666 is painfully low budget, and probably does the worst job of any entry (up to this point) of masking it. Gatlin is no longer a complete ghost town; it's instead a very small town, populated by a bunch of weirdos. The movie never convinces you that there's actually a town though, as the only locations we see are a barn, a cemetery, the cornfields, a motel, and a run down asylum. The asylum in particular feels off, as there seems to be only half a dozen patients, and it's operated by only three people - one of whom being the sheriff. The "children of the corn" also look like they're all in their 30's, leading me to assume the film didn't have the budget for many actual children. I think I'm onto something there, as Children of the Corn 666 is even shorter than its painfully short predecessor, clocking in at a mere 82 minutes.

Additionally, the film has some amateurish cinematography. I mentioned in my review for Children of the Corn V how that movie's experimental cinematography had as much good as it had bad. This film as a similar thing going on, but more extreme. Most of the film is shot perfectly fine and looks cinematic, but the opening 10 minutes features disorienting cinematography, with framing where the camera is 20% too close to its subject. There are also a handful of slow motion scenes throughout the movie that scream "direct to video".

I can usually find something to like with the Children of the Corn movies, and this one is no exception. John Franklin gives a really good and creepy performance as Isaac and is the highlight of the movie. I didn't even mention his character in my review for Children of the Corn (1984) because without really getting into the weeds with the details or spoiling the entire movie, there's wasn't a ton to say as he was only in a handful of scenes. As he's one of only two actors (the other being a glorified cameo) to appear in multiple Children of the Corn movies, I will concede Isaac is the "face" of this franchise and it was good to see him back.

Children of the Corn 666 also had some decent kills and a lot of carnage overall, but it was still not up to the level of Children of the Corn III's (1995) outstanding gore. Even though I complained about it a bit earlier, the asylum is a decent main setting for this movie and creates a nice bit of atmosphere. The story - though needlessly complicated - also has a nice twist here or there to keep you on your toes.

Overall, Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return is another mediocre entry in the franchise. As was the case with part V, I considered giving this movie a "3" before settling on a "4" for the reasons mentioned. Either I'm getting soft, or this franchise is beating me into submission. I could not find any budget or earnings information for this direct-to-video movie.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Including remakes...only 5 more to go!



yikes.

 

[BostonBob]

Including remakes...only 5 more to go!

5 more !!!!!! He's not going to make it.

 

[Crosby2010]

Children of the Corn (1984) - 4/10

After an accident, a young couple searches for help in a town taken over by a cult of children.

Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton as Burt and Vicky, who are traveling through Nebraska on their way to Seattle for Burt's new job. While driving down an isolated rural road, a young boy jumps out from the cornfields in front of their car. They head to the nearby city of Gatlin for help, but find it to be a ghost town, populated only by children in a demonic cult who murder anyone over the age of 18...

Children of the Corn was directed by Fritz Kiersch, and written by George Goldsmith. The film is based on the Stephen King short story of the same name, and there was significant discordance behind the scenes after King's own screenplay was rejected. King reportedly received $500K for the use of his story, bringing this film's budget down to a meager $800K. How does it fare?

I watched this movie for the first time a few years ago. I thought I bought it in some random digital 10-pack, didn't remember reviewing it on this site, and couldn't remember much of what happened. It turns out I was wrong on the first two points, and having watched Children of the Corn again, understand the third point. So while I reviewed this movie before, bear with me as I take another crack at it.

The film is very, very slow. Set almost exclusively during broad daylight, protagonists Burt and Vicky spend a lot of time driving around discussing their situation...but this isn't True Detective (2014-2024), and these two aren't Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey. I actually think Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton give decent performances, but their characters are extremely underwritten, with the thin back story about Burt being a relocating physician playing no role in the main events. And where the heck is their luggage, aren't these people supposed to be moving? I mentioned it last time, but for most of the movie there is nothing stopping Burt and Vicky from just driving away.

The scenes with the 'children of the corn' are really boring. They're almost exclusively exposition scenes where they argue amongst themselves in a way that is supposed to be a story dump for the audience. And boring is really operative word when it comes to this movie. There are situations that could be suspenseful or creepy, like when Burt and Vicky explore the abandoned town, or at one point when the two get lost in the cornfields. However, everything is directed in such a milquetoast way that the movie is a drag to get through. At the risk of sounding like I have narcolepsy, it took me two tries to get through Children of the Corn during this rewatch, and I still fell asleep the second time and had to go back and rewatch the final 20 minutes.

Without spoiling it, the film seems to only exist for its final 10 minutes. While this ending of the movie is far from cinematic gold (I wasn't even conscious for it the first time), it's the only time Children of the Corn feels like a horror movie and is somewhat effective. In hindsight, it feels like the rest of the film is mostly filler just to set up its ending. Though you could technically describe any movie like that, let me be more specific: the filmmakers could've deleted almost every character and scene and still ended up in the same spot.

Overall, Children of the Corn is an insomnia cure. However, likely based on the strength of Stephen King's name, the movie earned $14.5M against its $800K budget. Because Children of the Corn has significantly higher ratings on IMDB (5.7) and Letterboxd (2.7/5), take this review with a grain of salt (or should I say sand, because the sandman will come for you if you watch this movie).

Thought the opening scene of Children of the Corn was pretty good. Very creepy and sort of sets the tone. It is the scene in the restaurant that I am talking about. By the way, I have no idea why they don't kill the waitress who looks like she's 50 that partakes in the murders. Anyway, I agree the movie is slow, and a good start isn't followed by anything classic. Linda Hamilton made this right around the same time as Terminator. She is good in this movie. I do remember that she complains a bit to Peter Horton's character that he hasn't made a commitment to marry her yet. Then the kids show up and you know the rest.