Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992)

5/10

They said final sacrifice during the 90s but went on continuing the franchise.

Fella_shibby28 November 2020

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs. Revisited it recently.

This is a direct sequel of the first part and this time the adjacent town suffers when the adjacent townspeople decide to adopt the surviving children. Locals and cops find corpses of the adults and journalists try to dig in more information but once again the children forms a cult group where one of the cult member is possessed by a demonic entity. This one lacks the atmosphere n surrealism of the first part but makes up for it by adding more body count but in a hilarious way. I liked the dialogue from this movie, "Sometimes what u have learned conflicts with what u kno."

16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Children of the Corn II The Final Sacrifice: On par with the original, but thats not saying much

Platypuschow13 June 2018

I was underwhelmed by the original Children of the Corn (1984) film, I expected something a lot more impressive and walked away very dissapointed.

It took 8yrs before it got a sequel and the movie more or less picks up from the last. All the corpses of the residents have been found but the psychotic religious fanatic children haven't changed at all and once again set about purging the adults.

It comes down to a reporter and his son to stop them, but though it makes for an interesting follow up the movie itself isn't very interesting.

A couple of decent deaths and a passable premise don't make up for just how generic it feels. Nothing stands out, everything feels rather copy and pasted.

The Final Sacrifice tries to flesh out the mythology and background of "He who walks behind the rows" but in doing so kind of damages what they'd already built. Sometimes simplicity is the key.

If you liked the first I'd say this is essential viewing, if you didn't then take into consideration that this is more of the same.

The Good:

One death scene was great

Follows on nicely

The Bad:

Simply fails to entertain

Squanders potential

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Rifling through a persons belongings left in a car is suitable small town etiquette

BINGO!

14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

A Disney Classic!

I_can_get_you_a_toe9 August 2010

This movie doesn't quite have the awesome start the first one did – but I'll take a few decomposing Gatlin residents over nothing.

It's the aftermath of the downfall of the creepy munchkin Isaac, the Ginger Ninja Malachi, and He Who Walks Behind the Rows. And reporters and residents from Hemingford the neighbouring town have descended upon Gatlin, with the surviving Gatlin kids being farmed off to new families so the carnage can start again.

Coming to join the corn party is a teenage boy with a horrible haircut, Danny, his daddy issues and his daddy. They stay with 'attractive hostess with no real story' who has taken in a Gatlin kid called Micah, who also has daddy issues, so of course a friendship springs up between Danny and Micah that eventually leads to sacrificing people, as is the natural course of things.

Nothing much really happens after that. The Gatlin kids shuffle around town in a group staring at stuff. I've decided that Micah is the best starer – he really tries at it. And blah blah blah – people start dying. I'm bored already.

My favourite death (so few times you get to start a sentence that way) would be the old lady under the house, with all her howling and honking and crappy acting I was hoping one of the five year olds would just run up and start kicking her in the stomach – alas not to be, but she was crushed and the kids stood in their group and stared. Followed closely by the man who just started haemorrhaging blood all over the church. (Micah did some of his best staring in this scene – watch out for it) During this time, Danny has found love with a pretty young girl called Needy McNeederson. His daddy starts making sweet sweet love to 'attractive hostess with no real story' and there's some weird back story stuff thrown in about the corn and poisons and old Indian legends etched into rocks. None of it really makes any sense – doesn't fit in with the story in any way but it is told by a wise old American Indian man – so that lends some serious weight to what is being said.

It all ends where it should – in the corn. Attempted sacrifices are abound, professions of love and apologies are made. Micah's yelling all over the place and doesn't seem to be staring as much which makes me sad. He Who Walks Behind the Rows turns up briefly and does his thing. It's just another day with the Children of the Corn.

All in all, a pretty crappy sequel – but if you watch one, you gotta watch em all. Next up; Children of the Corn 3 –Gangsta Corn.

20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

"These Kids Watch Too Many Horror Movies."

Minus_The_Beer29 March 2011

Apparently it's not a good idea to sit in the nosebleed section of a church; black contact lenses lend evil powers to anyone who wears them; you should never climb under your house in search of your kitty, especially if evil-looking children are lurking about. These are just some of a few lessons to be taken from the sequel nobody expected that snowballed into the franchise nobody wanted, "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice."

Picking up after the events of the first film, a tabloid-journalist and his teenage son are passing through a small neighboring town of Gatlin, Nebraska shortly after those corn-husking little munchkins laid it to waste. Looking for his big break, the father/journalist decides to stay in town for a while. After merely a few days in town, he receives his fair-share of white-man's guilt from the resident Native America, uncovers a moldy corn conspiracy (a plot point which goes virtually nowhere) and plows the field of a innkeeper. Meanwhile, his son attempts to sow some seeds of his own with the girl-next-door who appears to the only one under the age of 18 in town who isn't under the trance of the mysterious maze.

It must be said that by no means is "Children of the Corn II" a particularly great film. Like the first, it's pretty basic and predictable. It seems as if the script for the first film was tweaked just slightly to concoct a sequel and it shows with plot-holes the size of Nebraska (see what I did there?). Director David Price -- whose resume is as equally unimpressive as the film's script -- loves to inject a lot of ridiculous gore into the film, but forsakes logic in doing so. You'll see corn husks slashing throats, a nosebleed that somehow turns into an earache and a house falling on a woman who doesn't seem to understand she can either try crawling out or hide in between the beams. Nevermind that, though. You don't come here for logic, and Price knows that. With his made-for-TV movie cinematography, you can be rest assured you'll know exactly what you're getting into within the first five minutes of the film.

But what about the cast? Kudos must go out to Ryan Bollman who does his best to look as menacing as possible as the leader of the kiddy cult. Someone ground that kid! On the other side of the coin, you have Terence Knox, resembling what would happen if Bill Pullman and Alec Baldwin gave birth to a bloated baby. Knox seems to be apathetic about the whole thing, as best evidenced by his reaction to the death of a friend by the end of the film. He steps it up a notch when he is caught sinning rather vigorously by his son, but this scene is so uninteresting, you'll feel the same sort of apathy toward it as the actor does the film. I guess you just can't expect Academy Award material with these films, but would it hurt to have actors who care about more than cashing in their paychecks carrying a film?

When all is said and done, in spite of its glaring flaws, "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" is easily the best sequel in the "Children of the Corn" series, but that's not saying much. When you consider the films that followed in its wake, it's almost a back-handed compliment. Then again, the first "Children of the Corn" wasn't ground-breaking cinema by any stretch of the imagination, so the fact that any sequel to it can deliver the most basic entertainment is a miracle in and of itself. To that end, "The Final Sacrifice" is a rather schlocky but suitable guilty-pleasure follow-up. If you've suffered through enough "Amityvilles" or "Howlings" then there is no reason you can't sit through this one as well.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Terrible and futile

InaneSwine28 December 2005

I loved the first film. It's a cult classic. But like me, if anyone else loved the original film, it may take you a while to realise how absolutely dreadful this pointless sequel is. It has a nonsensical plot, no characters, dreadful acting, dreadful music, dreadful script, no scary moments. It is an abomination.

The film involves the town of Gatlin being discovered, the children rescued and fostered by the adults of neighbouring town Hemingford. Then somehow, He Who Walks Behind The Rows possesses Micah – this sequel's terminally constipated-looking excuse for Isaac – and the children begin their cult again.

COTC II is just plain offensive. The plot shares less in common with Stephen King than it does with a particularly violent episode of Home and Away. Lead actor Terence Knox doesn't seem to be concentrating on his acting skills, and seems to be directing every ounce of his attention to not moving a single facial muscle in his skull. Paul Scherrer on the other hand simply looks like he's on a special day out.

Where the first film brilliantly explores the isolation of the victims from the rest of the world, its first sequel offers nothing more than a clueless slasher movie, with the soap opera moments hastily strung together by too-stupid-to-be-funny death sequences involving ridiculous characters that deserve everything they get.

One can easily understand why Stephen King does everything in his power nowadays to disassociate himself with the Children of the Corn franchise. If this first offering is anything to go by, God only knows the stream of grime that followed in the other five sequels.

You can actually simulate watching this film at no expense by sitting in front of a blank TV screen and repeatedly poking a finger in each eye for an hour and a half.

13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Dumb but amusing sequel with a couple of hilarious death-sequences!

Coventry18 June 2005

Warning: Spoilers

The original "Children of the Corn", predating this first sequel by almost ten years, had a pretty serious and demanding tone for being such a stupid horror film. The creators of this second chapter luckily didn't make the same mistake. The 1984 original tried to be an ambitious occult thriller while this film merely is a light-headed slasher with a typically 90's touch and goofy gore effects. The opening sequences are rather atmospheric, with the authorities and the press discovering the tragedy that took place in Gatlin. The surviving children are placed in foster families in the neighboring town Hemmingford where they reprise their murderous habits in the local cornfields. Newsreporter John Garrett arrives in town along with his estranged son Danny who finds both love and satanical commitment in the little farmer town. The script attempts to bring forward some possible explanations for the children's vile behavior (economical conspiracies, spiritual Indian theories...) but it's very poorly executed. So, you better don't pay too much attention to the "brilliant" plotting as there are silly but gruesome death-sequences to enjoy! An elderly lady get crushed by her own house (!), while another is killed when her wheelchair goes out of control! The best kill definitely is the guy who bleeds to death inside the town church! Good stuff! The music is also good and there even is some female eye-candy to admire! Christie Clark and Rosalind Allen are both fine looking ladies and their characters even are the most intelligent ones of the whole bunch. There are about seven films in the entire "Children of the Corn"-series, if I'm not mistaken, although I only saw the first four. As far as I'm concerned, this second entry is the most endurable of all.

7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

"TV is full of violence, BLOOD and fornication!"

kirkwuk23 February 2006

After the disappointing King horror film about a weird cult who worship crops comes the sequel. This has all the makings of a lame duck in classic 1990's style.

The same cult that destroyed the lives of adults in the first film are "rescued" and adopted by a modern American housing estate town. What this means is, plenty of adults die and He Who Walks Behind The Rows is mentioned approximately once every one minute thirty seconds and frustration ensues. Surely any god is going to be embarrassed at such a crap name, but these Amish kids are not only stupid but ugly as well.

Finding laughs with this film is like shooting fish in a barrel, albeit unintentional. Surely finding death amusing shows an unhealthy mind, but the victims in this must surely deserve death for their stupidity. A prime example being an elderly woman who's house is somehow propelled by a lift, who just happened to be misfortunate enough to become crushed by her own house rescuing her moggy. Or how about the wheelchair-bound granny that conveniently crashes through the window of a bingo hall at the shout of full house. The drinks are on him! Oh, how this movie has something against the pensioners. There's also some great acting by the church vicar who manages to patronise even the cult who worship the thing named He Who Walks Behind The Rows.

So as you can guess COTC2 doesn't really require much intelligence to watch. It's basically a rehash of COTC, with elderly people being picked off in their dozens and lots of kids reciting Shakespeare incorrectly.

2/5

9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

nothing special

dilapidated_mind20 February 2007

Although I am a horror fan I didn't enjoy the first Children of the Corn film much, so my view might be a little biased. Although having said that the movie did have its good points, the children were good actors/actresses, the violence was realistic and in moments semi chilling. Unfortunately this sequel shares none of these traits.

*spoilers*

The first death scene is quite surprising, I mean the guys are killed by corn, well that is dodgy. In the Stephen King short story the corn was there to serve as the vector for the children's pagan blood lust. They were killing to make it grow, though it is fantasy/horror it makes more sense than killer corn leaves that can smash through glass by simply being blown in a gust of wind believe me. Not only that but this scene reminds me so much of The Omen it's unbelievable, and what's with the Friday the 13th sound effects and Predator visuals? Hell this monster in the corn even has Return of the Jedi force powers!

And what's with the old woman's demise, crushed to death by her own house? Now that is quite original, and when I was first told of this by my Cousin I pictured it vividly. Someone slowly being crushed under their own house, nobody finds the body, nobody even knows she's dead, until finally the smell of muddy hair, rotted flesh and mushed bones greet the next visitor on that hot summers morning.

Maybe I was putting too much thought into this segment because yet again this is a scene ruined by cheesy references to other films. The lady goes under her house after her precious cat. When she is directly in the centre the children surround it, take the cat out and release the device raising it from the ground. The house slowly starts to come down on her and she wiggles backwards trying to escape. The children just stand there trying to look creepy, she almost gets out, why aren't they kicking her to force her to crawl back under? In the original at least the kids were violent; in this they just try to be mysterious. Well luckily for them she is too old to escape certain death and the house reaches the ground level crushing her lifeless and leaving her legs poking out from underneath. But even that isn't enough for the cheesily poor script writers, who wrote in that her last words should be "oh what a world!"? seriously they need to be slapped. All realism is thrown out the window at this point, that is if you hadn't done so already what with the Journalist mentioning in a almost tribute manner "Jones Town" just to be controversial (or maybe its just that all American news reporters are inconsiderate slimeballs) and the "killer predator in the corn" bull.

And how many times is the word "corn" used in this film anyway? Every time uttered its like a needle being drilled into my brain. Just stop already we get it.

The Dr who was being nice to the children earlier on in the film gets the worst death ever, and I mean worst, luckily he gets a lolly straight after. I wish I could tell you more but unfortunately I fell asleep, well it was 5am so it could have been that, but let's put it this way I'm an insomniac.

This film does have its good scenes, mainly when Danny is arguing with his dad, the teenage wit and angry demanding parent though stereotypical is realistic and at least gives the movie some sense of reality before it generates into the monomania of your average American teen horrorfest.

If you're a fan of the original maybe you should ignore my small analyses, it's possible you might like this. I mean the Freddy films became a bit silly, humorous, comic book and people still enjoyed them (I know I'm one of them) But the fact of the matter is, if your looking for a serious, creepy, dark horror film then your best bet is to stay away from this horrid sequel.

9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

I love this film so much (but for all the wrong reasons)

bowmanblue19 January 2015

I was fifteen when I first saw Children of the Corn 2. And I loved it. Then again, I hadn't seen much horror at the time. However, over twenty years later and I find myself realising how little I knew about decent cinema when I was a teenager.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed Children of the Corn 2 yet again, but now I found myself laughing heartily all the way though. Seriously, some comedies don't make me laugh as much as this film did (now, in the cold light of my adulthood).

If you can ignore the use of the word 'final' in the title (there are about four more Children of the Corn films afterwards) and be prepared not to take this story that seriously, you may just enjoy some of the most ludicrous death scenes ever committed on the elderly. The story follows a boy and his single parent father, coming to the nearby town in search of a story as to what happened to the adults who were now found to have been murdered by the children of the town. Once this pair arrive, both instantly fall in love with beautiful women and discover that a young lad by the name of Micha, leads a group of local children to stare intently at adults before dropping houses on them. If you watch this movie you will realise it has some of the most intense staring ever committed to film. Besides the beautiful women and staring brats, there's also a wise old native American, some 'Predator-vision' from the monster (or 'he who hides behind the rows') and a sheriff who tries to kill people like he was a Bond villain.

How this film was supposed to be taken seriously, I'll never know. Just know what you're getting before you watch this. Take the biggest pinch of salt you'll ever take, suspend your disbelief like you never have before and sit back and enjoy one of the most daftly funny horror films ever made.

10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Corny

benjamin-ryan10 January 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This has to be one of the worsted children of the corn movies but i have only seen number 1,2,3 and 7. Of course this film is corny because it is all about corn Thought that there were only one or two good scenes for example micah (bollman) is in Church and has a wooden doll and knife there is someone sitting across from him then micah starts putting the knife up the doll's nose and the guy across from him nose starts to bleed then micah keeps on doing it until the guy dies and the other good part is when micah dies. See They weren't that good but the were the best scenes.

I would like to say Ryan Bollman is one of the worst actors so was practically everyone that was in the movie, He shouted like microphones weren't invented. This movie should not be seen

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

The Cream of the Crop

Meshuggavishnu28 October 2019

Warning: Spoilers

I quite prefer this one to the original, which I also enjoy.

Why I like this one more:

This is much faster paced with more action and tighter editing. The original is pretty slow.
I love the father's bloated, sweaty face. He always looks stressed.
Gruesome. The nose bleed scene continues to terrify me, among others. The corn field storm is another solid and fairly creepy murderfest.
Ryan Bollman's "Micah" was intense and frightening. His sermons about He Who Walks Behind the Rows are engaging. I especially love his death scene as he's basically exorcised and then, once in control of his body again, is instantly threshed. I actually felt for him since he was innocent again at that point, but was killed anyway.
Christie Clark. 'Nuff said there.
I won't deny The Nostalgia Factor for me regarding early '90s horror sequels in the vein of Pet Sematary II, Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, Hellraiser 3 and this one. All of these have a similar style in regards to being gory and excessive.
The score is actually competently unsettling. It takes itself seriously and does not sound cheesy.

I'm fully aware most people don't like it or the aforementioned sequels, but I dig this style and miss these kinds of horror movies.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Much better than the original

guyfromjerzee13 July 2004

I didn't expect greatness, and I didn't get greatness. But the film is good, and I enjoyed it a lot better than the outrageously dull original. At least this one has its share of thrills and chills. The nosebleed sequence is certainly one to be remembered. Coming from a jaded movie fan, that scene really creeped me out. The plot is nothing original, and there are no real surprises. The characters, on the other hand, are semi-interesting. The acting is far from Oscar-caliber, yet at the same time it's pretty decent. I always feel that if you're not intending to make a first-class horror movie, you may as well go for camp. This sequel did not go that campy route, but it still works. The scene where the old lady in an electronic wheelchair came flying through the window of a bingo hall is probably intended to be scary or creepy, but it made me laugh my head off. Since I was so disappointed with the first movie (which was the equivalent of watching paint dry) I was even more impressed with this sequel. Plus, that Christie Clark is a real cutie.

10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

So-so.

HumanoidOfFlesh17 December 2001

The first "Children of the Corn" film is a decent horror film with some suspense and atmosphere,this one is basically just a typical slasher film gussied up with occult elements.By those standards,it isn't bad,with some decent scares and a fair amount of blood.Sure,it's nothing new,but overlook that if you really love horror genre.The acting is either wooden or over-the-top,but there are some rather inventive death scenes for example when an old woman is crushed by her own home.So if you are a fan of this series then go ahead-try this one,if not check out some other horror flicks.5 out of 10.

8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

* * Out Of Five

bronsonskull7211 April 2006

This time the remaining mean spirited kids are moved to a new location where they bring their usual kill-crazy antics and it's up to a tabloid journalist (Terence Knox) and his rebellious son (Paul Scherrer) to save the town from "He who walks behind the rows!" and save their love interests from sacrifice in this surprisingly watchable sequel, which is against genre odds better than it's lame predecessor. While the King story has nothing to do with the sequel, there are some entertainingly nasty scenes such as a voodoo nosebleed as well as a wheelchair smacked with a semi truck. Also as Scherrer's love interest, Christie Clark comes off very well. While Terence Knox looks like a cross between Treat Williams and Michael Pare. It's no masterpiece but for a campy horror sequel, Children Of The Corn II works as mindless entertainment.

2/5 Matt Bronson

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

As enjoyable as the first movie...

paul_haakonsen23 March 2023

I sat down to watch the 1992 movie "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" immediately after having just revisited the original 1984 movie "Children of the Corn". And I actually think that I have never seen this sequel before now in 2023, or if I did then I have entirely forgotten all about it.

Writer A. L. Katz delivered a fair enough script for the movie, which had elements from the first movie to it so it helped transition the viewers into this sequel. I actually found the storyline in the sequel to be just as enjoyable as the storyline in the first movie.

The storyline in "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" was enjoyable for what it was. Sure, this is not anything groundbreaking or particularly sensational. But the story did its job; it entertained. So director David Price managed to bring the script to life on the screen in a good way.

"Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" has some good acting performances to help bring the movie to life. There isn't a lot of famous actors or actresses on the cast list however, but that hardly mattered, because the performers in the movie had talents. I actually think I was only familiar with Terence Knox in this movie.

Visually then you're not exactly in for anything grand, because "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" wasn't using a lot of special effects.

If you enjoyed the 1984 "Children of the Corn" movie, then you will also enjoy the 1992 sequel "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice".

My rating of "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" lands on a five out of ten stars.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Children of the Corn II

BandSAboutMovies2 October 2023

Warning: Spoilers

Directed by David Price - the son of studio boss Frank Price - and written by A. L. Katz and Gilbert Adler (they both also worked on Bordello of Blood), Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice is anything but, as it's the first of what would be nine sequels. Two of them were reboots.

Hemingford, Nebraska isn't Gatlin but it's close enough. Two days after the events of Children of the Corn, the people of this town adopt the orphans of Gatlin and one of them, Micah (Ryan Bollman), starts talking to He Who Walks Behind the Rows and yes, the sequel is ready.

John Garrett (Terence Knox) is in town reporting on the children and his son Danny (Terence Knox) has come along for the ride. John's career is bad, but not as bad as his life, as he's going through a divorce and Danny hates him for it, so he fits right into all these creepy children.

After some lighting wipes out some reporters John knew from back when life was better, he gets down to business and starts sleeping with bed-and-breakfast owner Angela Casual (Rosaline Allen) and no, I won't go for the easy joke and say that she lives up to her name. Danny might, because he's mad that his dad is getting it on so quickly, but he also meets the creeptastic Lacey Hellerstat (Christie Clark) who drops some knowledge on him about her hometown.

While all that drama is happening, Micah and his child gang get to work dropping houses on people and using voodoo dolls to kill people while they're in church. They even throw an old woman and her mechanized wheelchair through a window. I am a strange person, I realize this, but I laughed like a lunatic during this.

Somewhere in all of this, there's a Native American professor named Dr. Frank Red Bear (Ned Romero) who throws some exposition on this sequel fire and claims that this has happened before but good news, there's a prophecy that there's a good spirit and not a bad spirit. Or maybe it's people selling bad corn which has a green gas that comes out of it.

Dr. Frank Red Bear gets some great dialogue.

Dr. Frank Red Bear: Koyaanisqatsi. It means life out of balance. My ancestors would have told you that man should be at one with the earth, the skies, and water. But the white man has never understood this. He only knows how to take. And after a while, there's nothing left to take. So, everything's out of balance. And we all fall down.

John Garrett: Wait a minute... so that's what happened here in Gatlin?

Dr. Frank Red Bear: No... what happened in Gatlin was, those kids went ape-**** and killed everyone.

As if they're been challenged to go as hard as they can, the children lock every adult in a building and set it on fire, killing almost every character in the movie before kidnapping Angela and Lacey, taking them into the cornfields and trying to get Danny to sacrifice them.

Now, as you sit there, you may ask yourself, "Do I want to watch a child get pulled into a harvester, but not before he has a demon face?"

Of course you do. This movie delivers.

He Who Walks Behind the Rows is now a good spirit by the end as Dr. Frank heals from being dead after shot with an arrow as his ghost paints some rocks.

The director claims that a local Christian group protested the movie and left a dead rodent for him as a warning, so they made their own church for the movie.

You can blame former New World exec Larry Kuppin for this. After there hadn't been a sequel for years, he picked up the filming rights and formed Trans Atlantic Entertainment. This studio existed just to make sequels to several New World Pictures films, including this movie, Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest, Hellraiser III and Avenging Angel. They also announced sequels to Wanted Dead or Alive and Crimes of Passion which didn't get made.

Trans Atlantic also produced Female Perversions, Death Ring, The Vineyard, Rage and Honor II, Plughead Rewired: Circuitry Man II, Tollbooth, Cirio Santiago's Vulcan, '68, I Shot a Man In Vegas and The Tale of Tillie's Dragon.

In fact, the same crew shot this and Hellraiser III back to back to save money.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Not so final after all

kosmasp18 April 2020

I haven't seen all the Children of the Corn incarnations and movies, but this definitely is not the final one. There are quite a few more that were thrown our way. But horror movies like to give the feeling of something being final to entice audiences to watch them.

Speaking of enticing, our two main characters are quite good looking. They might be a bit dull and not as engaging as one might wish, but still way better than the bland villain kid in this one. Well there are worse movies and better movies ... if you really want to watch it, there are some merits (no pun intended) ...

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

A Barely Adequate Sequel

Uriah435 May 2020

This film begins with a somewhat discredited journalist by the name of "Garrett" (Terence Knox) and his rebellious son "Danny" (Paul Scherrer) driving through Nebraska and stopping at the town of Gatlin where a horrifying story is developing about kids murdering their parents just days earlier. Checking into a Bed & Breakfast, Garrett meets two people who will subsequently become involved what appears to be a continuation of the preceding horror. The first is the friendly female proprietor of the Bed & Breakfast named "Angela" (Rosalind Allen) while the second is an anti-social teenager by the name of "Micah" (Ryan Bollman) who the other children seem to look up to but seems to be nursing a certain dislike for the other townspeople. One other key character is an attractive teenager named "Lacey" (Christie Clark) who becomes romantically involved with Danny despite the fact that Micah seems to be having more influence on him from day-to-day. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that, despite the fact that it took 8 years to produce this sequel, the film itself doesn't quite measure up to its predecessor. Admittedly, there was a new twist concerning a secret being held by the townspeople and the presence of two female actresses like Rosalind Allen and Christie Clark certainly added to the scenery, the overall picture was adequate at best and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A decent enough sequel if only for a few mild flaws

kannibalcorpsegrinder27 August 2016

Arriving in Gatlin, Nebraska, a news-reporter and his son get wind of a story about the youth in the town murdering their parents finds that a series of brutal murders are revealed to be worshipers of the corn-stalks and try to stop them before they carry out their plans.

While not a completely worthless sequel, it does have enough to make it interesting without being all that terrible. One thing it does do right is play around with the supernatural better than expected and did have some good moments to it featuring this. The very first attack in the cornfield is really fun as the howling wind and strange lightning blasts befalling the reporters while they're in the corn rows before the huge tree falls into the area, while other really good action moments are packed in amongst the other supernatural occurrences here as house-falling sequence and the scene in the church provide some fun since they involve a great amount of suspense. There's even a few other really good scenes that come from the different meetings held among the corn-stalks, and a really tense moment later on where a couple make a particularly gruesome discovery among the corn that provides a good shock that comes out of nowhere. Even better than that is where the remaining adults are trapped inside a burning building, which is one of the better scenes in the film with the fire and the panic providing plenty to like.The last big plus is the finale, which is just all sorts of good cheesy action-packed fun, some wonderful ideas and an overall really great way to end the film. All-in-all, this is just cheesy good fun. This one wasn't that bad, but there were a few problems. The most obvious one is the flaw concerning the back- story. It's implied to be a continuation of the first one, where the survivors are bused into foster homes of a neighboring town, yet that raises a few problems. Firstly, it's never stated whether or not this was true despite giving plenty of evidence that this was the case. The events of what happened there were well-known, yet the children here are allowed to go away without being questioned, as well as having a method of still getting in touch with each other quite easily which simply makes their rampage later on seem all the more out-of-place when it echoes what happened before in the the other town. Those doesn't make any sense at all and are quite annoying. There's also the fact that the pacing is a little off, as the romance angles cut into the middle of the film when the mysterious stuff starts happening, and way too much times goes by before anyone thinks anything is going wrong. The biggest one, though, is that it's way too cheesy. The film's concept and several of it's big action scenes do reek of cheese, and the film as a whole does reflect this. These really keep the film down somewhat.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity and mild sex scenes.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The horror continues

Realrockerhalloween19 August 2016

Warning: Spoilers

This was a fine follow up sequel in the corn series that picks up a week later where the kids are being transported by his to a new town nearby.

What made this special is it follows the themes of the first film and becomes its own entity. Its actually creepy, suspenseful and the acting isn't shabby

The school house going up in flames like the kids watch or when the doctor is being stalked is nightmarish.

Some of the death scenes are a bit ridiculous like the remote control wheel chair and the wicked witch death being reused to kill an old teacher who left Galin before the massacre and trust the teenagers for killing the their parents.

Another plot that can be confusing is an old Indian who talks about a legend of wild kids who killed their parents and the men talking about a pesticide in the corn that drives people crazy.

Are they saying the corn God isn't real or does he infect his followers by eating the corn against their will?

Another submit is a bit who gates his father for Not spending time with him and tries to rebel only to bond after he's saved from the final sacrifice. A common theme of parents and kids at odds.

Its a step down from the first, but it was a wonderful follow up and really expanded up on the mythology.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

A shameful sequel to a classic

ghstface26 August 2001

This film has plenty of plot options and new character development to work with. However, the film makers seem content on turning what could have been a classy horror sequel into a borderline B movie. Unfortunately terribly awkward dialogue and poor staging give this film a very unsatisfactory feel. Still, it does advance the story line and continues the plot of the original film rather well. But in the end there is little excuse for a production company backing a film with this many visible flaws in a finished product. (PS - Don't put your money in this FX companies stock)

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

3.3 Rating :o

jack_blink182rule13 October 2005

Warning: Spoilers

I give this film a rating of 10. This is possibly one of the greatest films I've seen. It's got everything you need in a good scary movie...Laughs, horror, blood, gore, good acting, good characters, funny characters. A failed journalist goes to Gatlin, Nebraska with his son to get a story on the kids who killed all the adults in town. The remaining children are being homed with the adults of Hemmingford, the neighbouring town. That's where Micah comes in, who is possibly one of the greatest characters in the whole of the Children Of The Corn series. He's sinister, he's moody, he's funny at points, he's scary and can shout loudly. The gore in this movie is excellent. The church scene is very gruesome. Some of the deaths are portrayed to be amusing, such as the death of the lady who launches through a bingo hall window on her wheelchair ;) An overall great film. 10/10 See this movie

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Mediocre 2nd Film

Rainey-Dawn7 May 2016

Children of the Corn II is not all that bad. They did try to stick in the vein/tradition of the original film - which is good. We have our reverend or preacher Micah who is a lot like Issac of the first film but not exactly like him. I found this to be done fairly well just not as good as the original.

I wasn't crazy about the father and son drama - but it was okay - it filled out the story. What I did find funny was the father and the son both finding a girlfriend because it was not necessary to the film it was just more time filler scenes.

I also was not crazy about the silly deaths in this one - they really went overboard with the campiness here. I much prefer the original because the film took itself seriously whereas this film went for campy humor.

Overall this is not to bad of a 2nd film but it could have been a lot better than it is - the potential was there.

6/10

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Okay sequel

atinder19 December 2011

This was not bad at all, its not great but it was decent movie for a sequel for the children of the corn series.

This start off, when the bodies have been uncovered and the neighbouring townsfolk of Hemingford, agree to shelter the traumatised children.

unaware that they are opening their doors to an awesome force that will threaten their very existence.

Once again, the power of He Who Walks Behind The Rows is reincarnated, and commands the children to rise up and rid the land of the adults that defile the sacred corn. It's time for the final sacrifice.

This movie did have some real nice death scenes, were really well made, there were some boring moment here and there.

The most of the movie was intrusting, but I was a little disappointing ,how the movie ended and thr acting is not great but it is watchable

5 out of 10 Good movie

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

It's not looking good...

elvogt23 February 2004

Let's see, what have we got --

Story - no

Characters - no

Gore - some

SFX - kind of

Humour - no, not really

Suspense - err... no.

Acting - not worth mentioning.

I'd say, it doesn't look like this flick is going to get a good rating from me.

4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed