While Children of the Cornis not Master of Horror's most acclaimed work Stephen King, the short story is arguably his most successful Hollywood asset, at least in terms of its sheer number of film adaptations. The story was first adapted into the 1983 short film Disciples of the Crow before becoming the 1984 cult classic Children of the Corn, which spawned a ten-film franchise. The new Children of the Corn, the eleventh feature film adaptation of King's story, is well aware that the short story has been creatively squeezed and decides to take things in a new direction by serving as both a prequel and the mythos of He Who Walks Behind the Rows in a Fire - new direction. Unfortunately, just as well-intentioned as the new one Children of the Corn perhaps it misses the mark by mixing a confusing ecological message with bland scares, forgetting what makes King's story so enticing in the first place.
Instead of being set in Gatlin, the fictional Nebraska country town where children perform human sacrifices to please an ancient deity, the new Children of the Corn is located in Rylstone. This supposedly neighboring community is also in Nebraska, the town's economy is based on corn production, and some children have heard voices as they walked across the verdant sea of leaves and cobs that stretches as far as the eye can see. While it is suggested that the Gatlin children's uprising was caused by religious zeal, things are set in motion in Rylstone as the land has been contaminated with toxic pesticides that make the soil barren.
It's easy to understand why the new Children of the Corn takes a detour to adapt King's story. Today, people are more concerned about environmental impact than religious zealots. This almost makes it commendable that the prequel chooses to re-imagine a horror story related to rural landscapes, and it deals with the generational conflict between pragmatic adults who want to make money by exploiting the land, and the children who are concerned make about the future of the planet.
Nevertheless, good intentions don't make good movies, and Children of the Corn ends up sending the opposite message than it promises in the first few minutes. After all, the kids are the villains of the Children of the Corn, and their eagerness to make a difference spreads death and destruction in their wake. So much so that the film is forced to wonder - in a very literal way - if the young people's hopes of building a better world don't make everything worse than it is. There's something odd about a movie that seems concerned about environmental impacts and ends up preaching against the desire of younger generations to improve humanity's relationship with nature. But the main thematic loss in Children of the Corn comes from the rendering of He who walks behind the ranks.
King's original story is a cautionary tale about the extremes of religion and the dangers of molding young minds with moral narratives that are bound to be violent. The town of Gatlin was extremely religious before the coming of He Who Walks Behind the Rows, and this corn god can only gain a following of children because it takes the place of something that was already there. It's no wonder the Gatlin kids still go to church even after ripping the New Testament out of their Bibles. In King's story, He Who Walks is a divine being who preys on innocent ghosts and twists flexible minds raised on tales of a vengeful god. The story is so scary because it makes us wonder how easily an evil entity can take the place of a loving god by using the same scriptures that are sacred to so many people.
By dropping the new completely by the religious background that originally led to the emergence of He Who Walks Behind the Rows Children of the Corn also makes the creature less scary. Instead of an unstoppable divinity, He Who Walks is now a being personally affected by soil degradation and able to exert some psychic influence over children. The original He Who Walks is an unstoppable entity. The new one is a material monster that we can actually fight against, and the kids are just pawns in his game because they don't act on conviction. This change deeply harms the new Children of the Corn because it strips the original mythos of the things that make it so scary and memorable.
Children of the Corn tries to adapt King's story to new sensibilities and fails. But what's worse is that the movie never escapes the pace of an average horror movie. No surprises await fans daring to walk across the new cornfields, and even the gore is rendered less effective by the overuse of digital effects. The characters are also generally reduced to a few personality traits and will stick to a one-dimensional response to the chaos around them throughout the film. So while the Children of the Corn franchise is full of subpar entries, the new feature still struggles to leave a lasting impression.
Still, if there's one reason to recommend the movie, it's that Kate Moyer's Eden, who acts as the prophet of the prequel and spreads the words of He Who Walks, turning the fear and anger of the younger generations into a weapon. While the character is written to be your classic evil child, Moyer clearly has a lot of fun playing Eden and manages to imbue the character with devilishly entertaining energy. Moyer's acting may not be enough to save Children of the Corn, but it undoubtedly enhances the experience. So at least fans who feel the urge to watch every new franchise installment have that to look forward to.
Judgement: D
Children of the Corn hits theaters March 3 before jumping to Shudder on March 21.
Comments
Post a Comment