Badmovies.org Forum

random dvd buy. Never seen part 1 (or if I have then I've forgotten it)

For some reason I had it in my head this franchise was really dull and dreary, but this was surprisingly fun. An early 90s horror with a late-80s feel. Treads the line between serious and cheesy in a good way, has a few typically over-the-top moments and characters... a little bit of melodrama, bit of a teen romance subplot... plus some great kills! better than yer average Friday 13th kills.

might have to check pt 3 from 95

How I would rank the COTC movies:

 1. Children of the Corn (1984) 2.5/5
 2. Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992) 1/5
 3. Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996) 1/5
 4. Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995) 1/5
 5. Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998) 0.5/5
 6. Children of the Corn: Runaway (2018) 0.5/5
 7. Children of the Corn (2009) 0.5/5
 8. Children of the Corn: Genesis (2011) 0.5/5
 9. Children of the Corn: Revelation (2001) 0.5/5
 10. Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999) 0.5/5

really 1/5 for part 2? harsh. I even thought it had good special fx. just a fun horror of that era imo... the atmosphere reminded me a bit of TICKS

can't seem to find a region 2 release of part 3...  4 and 5 have them tho

I recall bad CGI morphing in the sequel if memory serves. I do have fond memories of renting this at the video store. I thought it was awesome that Paramount released this on tape (US only). It gave the impression of good quality because it was distributed by a big studio.

The first had a few memorable moments, and the acting was decent (Linda Hamilton). But all combined it still didn't make for a good movie. The biggest flaw was the ending. The ending was disappointingly anticlimatic after a very long build up. Just a bunch of hot air, and the final scene was just cringe inducing.

The sequel was alright for what it was but still paled compared to the first which wasn't all that good to begin with.

fair enough....

wiki says the euro release has a CGI sequence cut from the middle of the film... not sure why that would be, but it must've been cause I don't remember one in the middle. however there was one at the climax, that I thought was pretty good!

Ahh yes, I think it was the one with, um, bubbles of blood or something? It looked awful. I can see why this was cut for the European market  :bouncegiggle: :wink:

no Dosdower, needs a new subtitle

the 1st one the Original one that is is among my favorite horror films of all time and it gave me plenty of nightmares while growing up.  i have not seen any of the sequels that i thought were good i have not seen them all but all of the ones i have seen you really kind of wonder why even bother? i know King is big money don't get me wrong but after part 1 (1984) these films are such at the bottom of his films of anything that why even bother? i mean kinda like why bother making at last count 23 Amityville horror films? none of them at all i consider great films at all the 1st one is a decent film but that's about it, i grew up with part 3 actually and i haven't seen that one in years but really that really is the last decent one. the rest are utter crap of the  ones i have seen

i remember when part 2 came out way back in (1992) i wondered why they waited so long for a new one? i still wonder that to be honest,  if you want to do a SK film why go after one of this worst series? they can't be that much of a hit on video can they?

hey I respect your opinions but I think you're all being way too harsh on this sequel...  :question:

I've ordered parts 4 and 5. straight away just from the dvd artwork it looks like they probably take themselves a bit too seriously but I'll see....

Giving the sequel a low rating doesn't mean I hate it.
I love part III because the cheese to me is amazingly fun. I used to pimp III at various message boards, telling everyone that if you enjoyed Troll 2 you'll get a kick out of COTC III: Urban Harvest but it was like nobody agreed with me  :bouncegiggle:

As they say, one persons treasure is another persons trash. It is almost impossible to rate "cheese" because people react differently to cheesy movies.
I do enjoy part 2 and that's why I ranked it as #2 because technically it is the "better" movie than IV and III, but I still couldn't give it more than 1/5.

damn I wish part 3 was available in region 2 but it seems not... really want to see it now  :smile:

yeah I get you... when I rate stuff I do it according to enjoyment factor only, but I understand the other way of down-rating 'cheese' and fun crappy stuff, versus genuinely good stuff

i haven't seen all of them to be fair so i can't say part 2 is bad if i haven't seen it though that remake from 2009 WOW was that thing awful i tried to watch and it was so bad i shut it off without like 5 or 10 minutes i forget which,  but Troll 2 (1990) now that's a film i shut off within like 2 or 3 minutes cause the acting was so bad that could not sit through it at all and since there's nobody i like at all that had a thing to with it i didn't watch it

can I suggest Goodmovies.org, you might prefer it there...  :smile:

...as I said, people react diffrently to cheese  :teddyr:

I know folks who praise the Ferrigno Hercules movie as cheesetastic. To me that cheese is dull and boring   :bluesad:

there's a lot of films i love that people say are terrible but to each their own , i'm a huge Cinema Snob fan though his older episodes i think are better than the newer ones and he as it's called Snobbed Troll 2 (1990) and that's more bearable than the actual film.

we all know that movies are made for the money but at some point you really do wonder that what kind of money does the children of the corn films even make now? it's got to be not that much i mean one hasn't hit the big screen as far as i know since the original in (1984) part 2 maybe but other than that each one seems to be worse,  kinda like the Hellraiser films where at some point they weren't even Originally Hellraiser movies but detective films that they changed to a horror film.

the Friday the 13th films for example still make money that's not a question but some of the series out there they can't make that much money can they? even before downloading movies off the net it just makes me wonder can they make enough for another pointless sequel? much like Amityvile or the Howling series

i haven't seen the last couple but the 1st one for some reason i loved as a kid but as i'm older it's weird i really don't care for the film anymore but i love part 3 and i think 6 the one that came out in (1991) the rest i think are just plain awful. the FX work for the 1st film and they are fantastic but while the film isn't bad compared to the 7th one for example and i don't think it's a terrible movie by any means it's just not among my favorites anymore which is just weird cause i loved it for so many years but in the last decade or so my opinion has changed on it

yeah I'm sure they can't be big money spinners... I mean how many hardcore fans are there of this series? I will hoover up 80s/90s horror all day long and even I never bothered checking them till now...


I've now watched Parts 4 and 5

4 was quite downbeat, understated. Naomi Watts was pretty good... not much different from her character in MULHOLLAND DRIVE. overall it was a tad dull but not a disaster.

5 was horrible. very amateur and kind of half-assed. Eva Mendez was hopeless, but not in an amusingly bad way (apparently she has admitted how crap she was in this).

I probably won't be rewatching either, or progressing to Part 6... Part 2 will stay in the collection though!

i dunno which one it was but the one with David Carradine is beyond awful and i think Kane Hodder if my memory is right played a bartender in it. there's one i think it's part 6? (1999) where John Franklin returned to his most famous role but that one he's the lead in actually and i haven't seen so i can't say how good or bad he's in it or how bad or how good the film even is.  him returning to the role when i first learned about it years ago is surprising actually i know he died in the 1st one so i dunno how that was written in at all

i can't remember but i did think did see the one with Michael Ironside i think that was from 2001? that one is pretty bad as well

All the others aren't much "better". Don't know why but I own most of these and mostly on Blu-ray as I was curious how they fare in HD. They are still bad sequels but at least look and sound good on blu  :wink:

for some reason the dvd of part 4 I got played the whole film in a box about 2/3rds the size of my tv screen and I couldn't change it... it said 'widescreen' on the box as well  :bluesad:

@pennywise yeah part 5 had David Carradine. there are some pretty well known guys in these things considering how trashy they are !

i know it's weird ain't it? i know there are actors/actresses who do the film to just pay the bills that i get but some of them you really wonder why they even went near them,  Christopher Lee comes to mind on some films he did such as Curse 3: The Bite i think it's called (1991) or Funnyman (1994) he clearly didn't need the money by than i'm sure.

I don't know about the COTC movies, but Uwe Boll was famous for making bad movies that kept getting investor funding. There was apparently a tax scheme that allowed investors to write off their contributions on tax if the movie did poorly. Maybe similar tax write off schemes are being employed with the later sequels of COTC.

that raises a good point but to be fair some of the films that Uwe boll not all of them from what he said in an interview from a few years ago some of his films had lot of interference if he's telling the truth that is and he seemed like a guy that was being honest, now i'm not saying that's an excuse for all his films but there are ones even he regretted making such as Alone in the dark (2005) he did regret casting Tara Reid.

i dunno like i said if it's an excuse or not but studio's have been known to interfere he also said that the studios are the ones who wanted him to keep doing the video game movies lord knows why they did terrible at the box office if he's telling the truth

Money-grabbing the Weinsteins released the COTC sequels after part II. They would have dropped them if they didn't made money off of them. Rental business was still booming in the 1990s, and the sequels were made cheap and went direct-to-video. Some of them had the Stephen King name attached, which would pull in even more rentals. Quite a lot of movies made more money as video rentals than they did at theaters.

The Weinsteins rushed out new sequels for Hellraiser and COTC in 2011 so that their rights to the franchises won't expire. They put in a lot of effort to maintain the rights and the only reason was $$$.

Not sure who owns the rights now. I think Hellraiser went back to Clive Barker. No idea about COTC.

apparently Chuck Norris INVASION USA was MGM studios 2nd biggest vhs rental money maker after GONE WITH THE WIND

I had honestly never even heard of INVASION USA until a few years ago. (Heard of Chuck Norris obviously but not that film...)

edit, I typed 'Chick Morris' lol... bloody phone

iv'e heard of invasion USA (1985) i think? i've just never have seen it though.  that's a good point i always have loved the company  Miramax really only cause they put out some of my favorite films it's just a damn shame that douche bag/rapist  was the head of the company. yet i get tired of them making movies just cause one isn't made i dunno why you have to make a film just cause the rights expire wouldn't it be easier if you just renew the contract? but than i don't know anything on how it all works so i could be wrong.