Category: Series

Child’s Play (1988)

Published on by Chris Scullion13 Comments

Director: David Kirschner

Starring: Brad Dourif, Catherine Hicks, Alex Vincent, Chris Sarandon

“Hi, I’m Chucky. Wanna play?” (Chucky, Child’s Play)

It’s hard to truly appreciate Child’s Play nowadays, since the first 40 minutes of the film are completely ruined. When it was first released it was genuinely chilling, a gripping whodunnit with a paranormal twist. Of course, nowadays everyone already knows ‘whodunnit’ and so the first half of the movie is spent waiting for the film’s characters to catch up and find out what the rest of the world already knows – that the killer is a doll.

Poor little Andy (the adorable Alex Barclay) wanted a Good Guy doll for his birthday, but his mum couldn’t afford one so she just got him clothes and a shitty Good Guys tool kit instead. Noticing his disappointment, Andy’s mum thinks she’s struck it lucky later that day when a peddler near her work is selling knock-off Good Guy dolls stolen from a burnt-out toy shop. She buys one for $30 and is suddenly the greatest mum in the world again.

"And you're sure this operation will work doctor? I really don't want to be a Siamese twin any more"

This doesn’t last, because it soon emerges that this particular doll is possessed by Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif), a serial killer and voodoo nut who transforms his soul into the doll just before he’s killed by a police officer. The doll, Chucky, sets about killing Andy’s babysitter as well as the other criminal chaps who screwed him over before his ‘death’. Cue various explosions and voodoo doll stabbings.

Since it’s the first film, the audience isn’t supposed to know Chucky is the killer. There are plenty of moments where it’s suggested (he leaves footprints on a table, seemingly blows up a building and so forth), but every time someone’s killed Andy’s close by, leaving some doubt in the audience’s mind – isn’t it just Andy doing the killing and blaming it on his doll?

Chucky was amused at the dog licking its balls in the room opposite

The special effects used to create the Chucky doll vary in quality throughout the film. In some scenes where Chucky speaks – most notably when he talks at length with his former voodoo mentor – the lip-syncing doesn’t really work too well due to the limitations of the robotics in the face and as such the illusion is shattered a bit. Other shots, particularly the far ones where Chucky is instead a midget actor wearing a Chucky mask, are far more effective and much creepier because the realistic movement makes it look more like a human in a doll’s body.

Child’s Play shouldn’t really have taken off the way it did. While the cast all put in great performances the kills are fairly dull and the two “he’s dead, or is he” endings are just silly to watch. The reason it was a success, and rightly so, is that Chucky is a fantastic movie monster. He’s a child’s best friend one minute, a foul-mouthed strangler the next and since his target victim is a six-year-old boy there’s something very sinister to him.

"Stop checking my ruddy temperature Margaret, I said I'm fine woman"

In a way, it was Child’s Play‘s own success that ultimately ruined the first movie’s impact. Once Chucky became a household name and every knew Child’s Play as “the film with the killer doll”, it instantly rendered the film’s first 40 minutes useless. Nowadays even the DVD cover has a big photo of Chucky brandishing a knife, making sure you definitely know what the surprise is just in case you’ve managed to avoid it.

If you’re able to forget for a while that Chucky’s the killer and can try to watch the film in its original context, Child’s Play is good fun. Otherwise, the sequels are better because they kick off with the Chucky action right from the start and don’t spend half the movie trying to make you guess what you already know.

A Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)

Published on by Chris Scullion3 Comments

Director: Jack Sholder

Starring: Robert Englund, Mark Patton, Kim Myers

JESSE – “Grady, do you ever remember your dreams?”
GRADY – “Only the wet ones.”

At the time, Jack Sholder didn’t know he was making a gay movie. As far as he was aware, he was simply making a sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, which had been a huge box office success the previous year. It was only when the film started getting recognition and critical praise from the gay media that he slowly realised he may have unwittingly created the greatest homosexual film of the early ’80s.

Freddy’s Revenge tells the tale of Jesse (Mark Patton), an effeminate young chap who’s new in town and already trying to win over his new high school lady friend Lisa (Kim Myers, looking remarkably like a young Bette Midler). The problem is, Jesse’s family have unwittingly moved into1428 Elm Street, the house where Nancy lived in the previous movie, and in doing so have provided Freddy with new victims to stalk.

"Haven't you heard, Toots? I'm a metaphor for Jesse's gay side. Ain't got no time for adequate pieces of tail like you"

As Jesse sleeps at night, he dreams about Freddy. Rather than killing him though, Freddy wants to take over Jesse’s body so he can come into the real world and kill all the teenagers in Elm Street. Jesse tries to resist, but finds himself unable to control his body. He goes into his little sister’s room wearing a Freddy glove and only just manages to stop himself attacking her. He sprouts a huge demon tongue while he’s getting down and dirty with Lisa but manages to hide it and leave without her seeing. Freddy’s taking over his body and there’s not much he can do about it.

Ah. Right. Well, I'm not touching this one, you can draw your own conclusions

Of course, as far as the cast and crew of the movie were concerned (well, most of them at least – nowadays Mark Patton, himself a gay actor, claims he knew all along what was happening), this was nothing more than a straight sequel (in every sense of the word) to the previous year’s big horror blockbuster. That wasn’t how the gay community saw it, however. In their eyes, Freddy’s Revenge was a film about a young man struggling to accept his own sexuality and trying to fight it. The funny thing is, if you watch the film with the assumption that Freddy is supposed to be Jesse’s gay side, it’s hard to argue with them.

Everything Freddy does to Jesse can be interpreted as an attempt to bring out his gay side. The aforementioned tongue scene is Freddy’s attempt to stop him being intimate with a woman. At one point, Jesse runs to a male friend’s house, climbs through his bedroom window and tells him there’s someone inside of him he’s trying to get out. Every time Jesse kills someone (while under Freddy’s control), he lets out an incredibly high-pitched scream. When Freddy finally completely takes over Jesse’s body, the only way Jesse can be freed is for Lisa to kiss Freddy, essentially killing off his homosexual side.

The pivotal coming out scene, where Freddy literally "comes out" of Jesse while he's in another lad's bedroom

All these are mere foreplay, however, compared to the scene in which a sleeping Jesse, under Freddy’s control, walks to the nearest gay S&M club and finds his gym teacher there wearing a tight leather outfit. The teacher takes Jesse back to the school and makes him run laps in the gym, but afterwards Jesse, as Freddy, ties him up with skipping ropes in the shower, strips him, whips his bare arse with a towel then gives him the old fingerknives in the back (penetrating him from behind, if you will). If the cast and crew genuinely weren’t trying to make a gay movie, you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking here. I’m not just making this up, you know, here’s an entertaining behind-the-scenes video with the film’s cast admitting they had no clue. They’re incredibly honest and stunned at how gay they made the film. It’s a must-watch!

Either way, the homosexual subtext is neither here nor there – Freddy’s Revenge is simply an odd film however you take it (so to speak). Odd, unexplainable things happen throughout the film, each doing their bit to undo the “rules” and mythology laid out by Wes Craven in the wonderful first film. Jesse’s house suddenly becomes incredibly hot for some reason, to the extent that his pet budgie goes mental, attacking Jesse’s sister and then spontaneously combusting into a tiny explosion of flames and feathers.

"Sorry lads, you don't look gay enough. This film has to be fucking blatant. Back to the locker room"

Then there’s the part where Freddy freely comes into the real world, something that was a big no-no in Craven’s original (only Nancy could bring him out of her dream). This leads to a ridiculous scene at a pool party where Freddy confronts 50 or so teens, most of whom are taller than him and could probably kick his arse.

In a series famous for its bizarre moments and bending of reality, for Freddy’s Revenge to somehow feel a bit off is something of an achievement. It’s entertaining enough however you choose to interpret it, but it’s by no means one of the better entries in the Nightmare saga.

Return To Sleepaway Camp (2008)

Published on by Chris ScullionLeave a comment

Director: Robert Hiltzik

Starring: Paul DeAngelo, Vincent Pastore, Isaac Hayes, Michael Gibney

RANDY: “Are you really that stupid?”

ALAN: “Not as stupid as you, you big penis!”

Although the cult classic horror Sleepaway Camp has had a couple of sequels, neither were really seen as true spiritual successors since none of the original cast and crew were involved. With the first film’s director, writer and key cast members making a comeback for Return To Sleepaway Camp though, it could probably be considered the first ‘canon’ sequel to the original movie.

(Heads up – there are some spoilers for the original Sleepaway Camp below)

Isaac Hayes quit as Chef in South Park, then played a chef in this instead. D’oh

Taking place 25 years after Sleepaway Camp, Return is set in Camp Manabe, a new summer camp part-run by Ronnie, the head counselor in the original film’s Camp Arawak. Ronnie (played once again by Paul DeAngelo, who seemingly hasn’t learned any new acting tricks in the past two and a half decades) gets suspicious when kids at the camp start dying in gruesome ways, just like they did back at Camp Arawak.

Ronnie’s certain that Angela is to blame for the killings, even though her cousin Ricky (who is also played by the original actor, now in his mid-30s and more camp than Butlins) assures them that she’s still locked up in an asylum and has been since her rather awkward public display of nudity.

This police guy looks and sounds a bit weird. Wonder why…

This makes the prime suspect Alan – a big fat simple lad who’s constantly bullied by the other campers. Throughout the film this gets to Alan and he snaps on a regular basis, often screaming at his bullies and sometimes even pointing a knife at them. But is Alan upset enough to actually kill anyone? That’d be telling.

Much like the original, everything in Return To Sleepaway Camp is pleasantly bad. The acting remains as abysmal as ever, the dramatic music blares over scenes of standard dialogue for no reason at all, the script is atrocious (check the example above to see what I mean) and while the inevitable “twist” ending was clearly never going to match the original in terms of shock value, it should still please some fans of the first film.

This was the worst telescope Duncan had ever used

A slasher film generally lives and dies by the inventiveness of its death scenes, and Return To Sleepaway Camp makes a decent attempt at it. Whether it’s the wince-inducing scene involving a length of wire tied to both the manhood of a poor chap tied to a tree and a truck set to drive off, or the will-they-won’t-they moment where two kids keep looking through a hole in the ground where they can see a sharpened a broom handle lying under their cabin, the kill scenes are fun enough to keep you watching even if they’re not amazingly well-executed (pun very much intended).

Return To Sleepaway Camp isn’t trying to be the greatest film ever made, it’s a fun and sometimes tongue-in-cheek love letter to fans of the first film who continue to keep its legend alive. For this reason I’d recommend watching the original first, and only giving this a shot if you decide you want more of the same.

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

Published on by Chris Scullion7 Comments

Director: Robert Hiltzik

Starring: Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten, Karen Fields

Also known as: Nightmare Vacation (UK VHS)

BILL: “Eat shit and die, Ricky!”
RICKY: “Eat shit and live, Bill.”

My first encounter with Sleepaway Camp was an unassuming purchase at a second-hand DVD shop in a Glasgow market. I was a member of a horror forum at the time and I vaguely remembered it being a part of someone’s list of horror films that were worth checking out. I had slight recollections that there was a reason it was such essential viewing but for the life of me I couldn’t remember why.

This (wo)man is guilty of the worst acting ever committed to celluloid

I took it home and there it sat for a few weeks, until eventually I watched it with my brother late one night. We were used to watching cheesy ’80s camp slashers and for the first 80 minutes of its 84-minute duration Sleepaway Camp is a prime example of this, with its hilariously bad acting and inventive, gruesome deaths. And then the ending came, with an image that will forever be burnt into the minds of my brother and I for the rest of our lives.

Angela and her cousin Ricky… but who’s the killer?

The general plot seems fairly run-of-the-mill. After a man and one of his children die in a horrible boat accident, the man’s sister takes in the other, orphaned child and raises it as one of her own. Fast-forward to ten years later and the child, Angela, heads off to summer camp with her cousin Ricky. As you’d expect, shit starts to go down at the camp and people start dropping off in gruesome ways, but who’s behind the killings?

The new series of Bullseye had started horribly wrong

Sleepaway Camp feels like a real labour of love. Despite the sub-standard acting which ranges from wooden (most of the counsellors are as one-dimensional as an x-axis) to ridiculously over-the-top (the actress – at least, I think it’s a woman – playing Angela’s aunt really has to be seen to be believed), it’s clear that everyone’s having a ball making this film and this comes across in the relationships with the children. Sure, they can’t act, but you find yourself not really caring.

Without even taking the ending into account (I’ll get to that later… no spoilers though, of course), Sleepaway Camp is littered with scenes that are surprisingly dark and grisly for a standard slasher film, especially considering most of the victims aren’t the older teen camp counsellors we’re used to in this sort of film, but actually the children attending the camp.

You’ll squirm as one of the girls gets hair curlers thrust into an unmentionable area, wince as a young lad is stung to death by bees, cheer as the paedophile chef (yes, really) gets what’s coming to him and gasp as you see a brief glimpse of a group of mutilated eight-year-olds. Yes, it might be cheesy and low-budget, but Sleepaway Camp isn’t fucking around.

Genuine dialogue: “She’s a real carpenter’s dream… flat as a board and needs a screw”

And then there’s the ending (which I refuse to even hint at). It’s a true shock becomes it comes completely out of nowhere, yet still makes sense in the context of the story. The film lulls you into a false sense of superiority as you’re more or less certain to guess the killer within the film’s first 25 minutes. It’s so obvious it’s almost laughable, and you sit patiently waiting for the ‘shock’ reveal when they’re exposed as the perpetrator. But then it throws a curveball at the last minute by revealing that the killer’s identity was never supposed to be the big twist, it was always meant to be something entirely different and far more shocking.

I urge you to track down Sleepaway Camp. It’s 80 minutes of fun, cheesy camp slasher gold, topped off with what’s genuinely one of the most memorable endings in cinematic history. You will not get that final image out of your head, I guarantee it.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)

Published on by Chris Scullion24 Comments

Director: Wes Craven

Starring: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, John Saxon

“One, two, Freddy’s coming for you…” (freaky as fuck children, A Nightmare On Elm Street)

It’s unfair for me to give a fair and objective review of this film because it was such a big part of my childhood. The majority of my years as a wee boy were spent shitting myself at the very sight of Freddy Krueger (unlike my fearless younger brother who idolised him). The Nightmare films affected me so much that they remain the basis for my love of horror to this day. Quite simply: no Nightmare On Elm Street, no That Was A Bit Mental. So it’s to blame if you think this site is pish. Therefore, anyone expecting this film to get any less than a full 5 out of 5 can stop dreaming (as it were) and just accept it. I fucking love this film, and I always will until the day I die. Now let’s dissect it.

Johnny Depp in his first ever role. Awwww

Nancy and a couple of her other high school friends have started sharing the same bad dream about an impolite chap named Fred Krueger. Mr Krueger has a glove with long razors for fingernails, which must be an inconvenience when he has to use toilet paper. Naturally, he’s not a happy man (not necessarily because of the toilet paper though) and terrorises Nancy and her friends every time they dream about him. Once Nancy’s friends start dying in their sleep, however, it soon becomes clear that whatever Freddy does to you in your dream affects you in real life, and if he kills you in your dream you’re fucked in real life too. It’s up to Nancy and her boyfriend Glen to figure out how to stop Freddy before all the Elm Street children die in their sleep.

Freddy's makeup was a little nastier than it was in later films

Everyone talks about how the original Friday the 13th isn’t scary anymore because (with the exception of Kevin Bacon’s death and the ending) you’re pretty much warned about all the deaths in advance (the shadow of the axe against the curtain before it’s slapped into someone’s head, for example). A Nightmare On Elm Street, on the other hand, still provides the odd chill to those who have yet to watch it; be it Freddy bursting out of a mirror, Tina’s death or Glen’s unfortunate bedroom experience. It’s safe to say that 27 years after its release, despite showing its age a little in terms of special effects, A Nightmare On Elm Street can still hold its own fright-wise against much of the emotionless bullshit that’s being released in cinemas these days.

This scene actually merges slow motion into normal speed without the viewer noticing

Part of this is also down to the film’s concept in general. It’s often hard to care much about slasher films because not many of us have been chased down a street by someone wielding a knife (unless you’ve spend a Friday night in Glasgow of course). Everybody has nightmares though, and everybody knows how powerless they feel when they’re having them, so building a film around that idea was a genius move by Wes Craven.

Of course, this film would be nothing without Freddy Krueger, one of the greatest horror characters in history. The idea of a dodgy chap burnt alive by the parents of the children he killed who now seeks revenge is great, and the innuendo and suggestions that he may have been more than simply a child murderer adds an underlying sense of nastiness without ever actually confirming anything.

Gore fans will be reasonably happy with A Nightmare On Elm Street because there’s a good deal of the red stuff spattered throughout the film, most notably during the famous first kill where Freddy drags the helpless Tina onto the ceiling. Plus Freddy seems intent on causing himself harm in every scene he appears in, be it by slicing his fingers off or cutting his stomach open. Quite gory then. The deaths are also extremely inventive, given the film’s low budget. It’s a credit to the special effects crew that the aforementioned ceiling death is very surprising when it happens, because you don’t expect to see something as cool as that happening in a film that seems fairly cheaply made. Here’s the scene if you haven’t seen it before:

The acting is possibly the one area where the film could theoretically lose some points. As much as I love this film I have to admit that it’s undeniably ’80s and most of the actors (with the exception of Johnny Depp, Robert Englund and John Saxon) either play their roles in an over-the-top manner or simply are’t convincing enough. As a lead actress, Heather Langenkamp is simply not good enough in this film and her shonky delivery of her lines tends to take the viewer out of Craven’s world and throw them back into reality. This is more due to her inexperience as an actress when she starred in this, however: indeed, her later roles in the third and seventh Nightmare films were much more believable as she gained maturity as an actress.

A product recall for Marks & Spencer's new line of bath mitts was inevitable

Maybe I’m being biased, maybe I’m being nostalgic, but I am of the honest opinion that anyone who hasn’t seen A Nightmare On Elm Street before they died better have a good reason like being Amish or something. Not many horror films can be considered classics but in my opinion among the true classics you have your Dawn Of The Dead, you have your Halloween, you have your Friday The 13th and you have your Nightmare On Elm Street. Yes, the acting is poor and the fashion is sometimes scarier than Freddy himself (witness the camp might of Johnny Depp’s crop-top and bouffant hairdo), but these are merely documents of the film’s history.

Does anyone question Nosferatu‘s lack of sound? No, because all films at that time were silent. Therefore, should anyone question A Nightmare On Elm Street‘s dodgy acting and dodgier clothes? No, because all ’80s slasher films had Oxfam wardrobes and stars who couldn’t act their way out of a nutsack. It comes with the territory. What doesn’t however, and makes A Nightmare On Elm Street better than its countless competitors is that it’s a clever, well-directed horror with great special effects for its budget and inventive deaths that involve more than just someone else getting their throat slit every five minutes. If you haven’t seen it, take it from me and remedy that situation. Here’s the trailer to help drive the point home:

Halloween III: Season Of The Witch (1982)

Published on by Chris Scullion2 Comments

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace

Starring: Tom Atkins, Dan O’Herlihy, Stacey Nelkin

“Halloween, the festival of Samhain. The last great one took place 3000 years ago, when the hills ran red with the blood of animals and children.” (Conal Cochran, Halloween III)

Despite the success of the first two Halloween films, rather than sticking with the same formula the third movie went in a completely direction and scrapped Michael Myers, opting instead to tell a completely different story altogther. It was a move that in my opinion paid off, even if it’s a film that’s not really remembered these days.

Indeed, had this been simply named Season Of The Witch and not contained the word ‘Halloween’ in the title, it would have probably received a much better response from horror fans. As it is however many people tend to see this as the bastard son of the series despite the fact that, lack of Myers aside, it’s one of the stronger Halloween films.

Ashley Olsen's eating disorder wasn't getting any better

A hospital patient is brutally murdered and his attacker dies soon after when his car blows up. Dr Dan Challis witnesses these events and decides to investigate, along with the daughter of the murdered man. They soon discover that Silver Shamrock (a Halloween mask-making company), led by the evil Conal Cochran, is plotting to revive the original idea of Halloween: mass murder. How does Cochran plan to do this? By triggering all the masks they’ve sold to kill whoever is wearing them at a certain time on Halloween. Now that’s a quality idea.

From the opening credits we know we’re still in Halloween territory, despite that key missing ingredient of Mr Myers. As a crude pumpkin is drawn on screen using an old computer (probably an old BBC Micro or something) the music is reminiscent of John Carpenter’s score from the first two films.

It was the hottest curry Susan had ever eaten

The idea of how Cochran plans to kill the children of America is also sheer brilliance. Using the addictive power of hype to control these impressionable children and lead them Pied Piper-like to their eventual demise is a stroke of genius which really should be used more often in films. It isn’t for the simple fact that the killing of children is still fairly taboo in cinema plots, so when Halloween III‘s most grisly death involves an eight-year-old boy it’s ruddy effective stuff.

There are some nice death scenes throughout, including a genuinely jump-inducing scene in a motel room (with a grotesque aftermath) and the infamous, aforementioned child death. Needless to say this is a very uncomfortable moment to watch, and while some may complain about it, I instead feel it’s a very powerful image and is perfectly handled.

There's nothing more disturbing than walking in on your partner having sex with a Coke bottle

Tom Atkins is great in every film he appears in and here he is no different. The fact that he looks like a normal Joe and not a well-built stereotypical “hero” figure allows us to connect with him on a better level than we would with, say, Busta Rhymes in the later Halloween: Resurrection. At times his acting borders on over-theatrics, but it’s so cheesy and typically ’80s that you can’t help but love it.

As for evil super-villain Conal Cochran (well, he must be a super-villain if he plans on killing every child in the country), Dan O’Herlihy plays him as well as possible given the script he has to work with. After all, no human being on this planet could successfully manage to explain how the masks are powered with rock from Stonehenge without some hint of cheese and scenery-chewing involved.

In all, Halloween III is top class ’80s horror. As long as you go into it with an open mind you should enjoy it. This is not really a Halloween film, so don’t expect one. Block Michael Myers out of your mind for 92 minutes, settle down with some Doritos and Coke, and enjoy a good slice of ’80s terror. You won’t regret it.

Children Of The Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992)

Published on by Chris Scullion4 Comments

Director: David Price

Starring: Terence Knox, Ryan Bollman, Ned Romero

REDBEAR: “My ancestors would have told you that man should be at one with the Earth, the sky, the 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.

GARRETT: “Wait a minute. So that’s what happened here in Gatlin?”

REDBEAR: “No. What happened in Gatlin was those kids went apeshit and killed everybody.”

How can a film be so good yet have a sequel so achingly bad? Many will tell you this has always been the case (Freddy’s Dead and “The Exorcist II” spring to mind). But Children Of The Corn II is so terrible compared to the first film that your soul will weep.

Seemingly taking place soon after the events of the first film, news teams have arrived to cover the story (presumably the survivors of the first film notified authorities). Meanwhile Garrett, a reporter, is driving through the countryside for a job interview in New York with his son Danny coming along for the ride (against his wishes). Hearing of the story in the small village of Gatlin, they decide to check it out. Horrific hijinks ensue.

Children Of The Corn II is rare in that you’ll probably enjoy it more if you haven’t seen the original first. If you already know the story so far, your brain will be overloaded with questions for the first 40 or 50 minutes. “How long is this after the first film?” “Are those two corpses at the start meant to be the couple at the end of the first film?” “How come Malachai looks so different?” and “Where did that new kid come from, and how did he become the leader so quickly?”.

This was the shittest barbecue ever

Put simply, this film makes no attempt to connect with the original. The first scene after the credits (a terribly-acted news broadcast) tries to explain its own version of what happened, deciding to totally ignore the characters played by Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton in the first film. One of the most important characters, Malachai, has been replaced by someone who looks absolutely nothing like him and has no emotion whatsoever (unlike the original actor who, as mentioned in the previous film’s review, made the part his own by being a wanker). Naturally the actor could not be called upon to play the role again because this was filmed eight years after the original and going by the story he would already have been sacrificed because he’d be well into his twenties.

The whole thing reeks of shoddy filmmaking in general. Two elderly sisters are played by the same person and are never seen in the same scene; a Native American character stereotypically called Red Bear is introduced and quickly gets into character by talking about how foolish “the white man” is; and the quality of the acting reminds me of a girl from my Drama class in High School (she failed).

It’s not all bad news however. There are some interesting death scenes (one in particular involving a windscreen and a bale of corn, reminiscent of Final Destination 2) and the actor playing Micah, the new cult leader, is curiously strange (as the role demands, after all). He’s certainly one of the more interesting characters and fits into the “Isaac” role of the first film quite neatly.

Humour is also scattered throughout the film, a move that is unwelcome in my opinion. The original film was straight horror and nothing else; an attempt to add comedic elements is out of place (except for the excellent quote at the top of this review, of course). A death in which an electric wheelchair is taken over by one of the kids is a prime example of humour ruining the tone of the film.

The only real area in which this film is on an equal ground with the original is unfortunately that both have a weak ending. Again we are treated to what seems to be a giant mole tunnelling underground, followed by poor CGI effects in an attempt to add an unnecessary supernatural element to the film. Of course, the sequel takes it too far before this point anyway, with pointless Predator-style ‘body-heat’ POV shots that affect the film in no way at all other than adding to the shitness factor.

Children Of The Corn II would have received only one skull out of five had it not been for the pleasant addition of Christie Clark, a fine actress who sadly didn’t do many films after this. To give a film an extra half a mark based on the appearance of a minor character alone however speaks volumes on the overall shoddiness of the entire production.

Do yourself a favour and watch this awesome seven-minute version of the film, which cuts out all the boring shit and leaves you with the weird shit.

Children Of The Corn (1984)

Published on by Chris Scullion13 Comments

Director: Fritz Kiersch

Starring: Linda Hamilton, Peter Horton, Courtney Gains

“Our time of tribulation has come. A test is at hand. A final test.” (Isaac, Children Of The Corn)

Films based on Stephen King books are a mixed bunch. You have your great films that are unfortunately not much to do with the book (The Shining), your great films that stick nearly 100% to the book (Pet Sematary), your non-horror films (Stand By Me) and your pieces of shit (Dreamcatcher). Having not read the short story Children Of The Corn is based on I am not at liberty to suggest which category this film falls into, but needless to say it’s sure to be one of the first two because this is a fantastic flick.

A doctor and his girlfriend are moving to the big city so he can set up a surgery. Whilst driving past a cornfield they hit a boy who steps onto the road. Realising he had already been stabbed, the doctor puts the body in his trunk and drives to the nearest town to get some help. Trouble is, the nearest town is Gatlin, a small countryside village much like any other you’d care to name. As long as you’re naming one in which the children have killed all the adults and are members of a religious cult.

This is Isaac. He's weird.

There must be something about Stephen King books that makes their film translations scarier than usual. I can personally sit through 95% of most 80’s horrors without batting an eyelid. ‘Tense’ chase scenes don’t usually affect me and I can work out when the big scares are coming in most of the films, as they were more predictable back then. However, of the countless ’80s horror films that attempt to scare the viewer, only two I’ve seen so far succeed in making me feel extremely uneasy: Pet Sematary and Children Of The Corn.

The film opens with a flashback of events that took place three years before the film is set, and right away the audience is thrown into the mix with a number of ‘scythe n’ knife’-related killings and a freaky looking Amish lad who looks as if he hasn’t slept for 7 months. In time however, you may grow to feel sorry for him. Maybe.

The thing that really wins me over with Children Of The Corn is the imperfection of the two lead characters. Whereas in most films the hero is the virgin who never smokes, always does the right thing and collects injured birds off the road and gives them baths, Children Of The Corn forces you to question your feelings on the heroes. This kicks off right from the first scene, where Burt refuses to propose to his girlfriend Vicky and doesn’t seem to have time for her. Meanwhile, when Burt suggests they take the injured kid’s body into town to get help Vicky at first refuses, showing a coldness not many ‘hero’ characters demonstrate. While this could have so easily resulted in a film with characters that the audience feels no sympathy for when they get involved in later events, the excellent performances by Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton coupled with the effective script only make the characters more believable, bringing the audience closer and making it easier for them to relate to Burt and Vicky (after all, nobody’s perfect).

This is Malachai. He's a twat.

The real stars are the children, though. There are good kids, bad kids (the nameless ones who always seem to be there whenever someone pegs it) and batshit mental kids (Isaac, the leader of the cult). And then there’s Malachai. Never before have I hated a character more than I hated Malachai. Perhaps the young actor playing him (Courtney Gains) was tapping into the years of mockery he received for having a girl’s name, or perhaps he’s actually like the character, but this boy’s sneer makes you want to punch his head off and you really want him to get what’s coming to him (which, at the end of the day, is what the filmmakers intended). I’d love to have been at that casting meeting: “I think we should give the role of Malachai to young Courtney Gains, because he’s a complete prick”.

Although for the most part Children Of The Corn isn’t too dodgy, it does contain one of film’s biggest taboos: the brutal killing of children. Some of the adults get theirs too, especially at the start, but when you’ve got a town full of kids and they’re all a bit mental, some of them are going to have to take a kicking.

This film would have received a full 5/5 if it hadn’t been for one disappointing aspect; the ending. Perhaps this is how it ends in the book, but as soon as the dirt started moving Tremors-style and getting a little out there I was disappointed. Had the film stayed away from special effects at the end and kept to the idea of a religious cult it would have been a far more satisfying ending. As it is, it gives the impression that the kids actually knew something we didn’t and maybe weren’t so mental after all… a pretty weak end to a fantastic story.

This is also true for the last scene. The last 30 seconds are so underwhelming that when you see the words “The End” you can’t help but think that ending was just thought up at the end of shooting in order to get a final scare in there (and I use the word ‘scare’ loosely). Don’t let that put you off however. Children Of The Corn is 88 minutes long. Of these 88 minutes, 80 are fantastic. It’s just a shame those last eight were so disappointing.