Synopsis:
Hannah Martin is a girl with a troubled past. She has never known her mother, but she plans to find out. That is why she is driving to a place which many people don’t like to even drive through: Gatlin, Nebraska. When driving, she sees a man asking for her help. His name is Zachariah Johnson. While driving, Zachariah tells Hannah about her name’s Biblical meaning and history, how that the Hannah, in the Bible, asked God for a son and that once she had one, she gave him to the Lord for all the days of his life. Hannah claims that she doesn’t see any children in her future, but Zachariah protests, saying that it isn’t her choice. But before she can argue back, Zachariah disappears. All of a sudden, Hannah has a vision of a preacher’s silhouette in the corn and slammed on the breaks, driving over some corn.
Checking out what was happening was Officer Cora. Hannah blamed the incident on a Cheshire cat. When Cora takes her license to check, she notices something about her. Turns out that there is a prophecy of the first born male and female children of the corn would conceive a son in which would become the new prophet of the corn. Cora decides to take her to Gatlin County Hospital - who has another patient - Isaac, who was actually put into a coma after He Who Walks Behind The Rows let him have enough life to kill Malachai in the original film.
Once at the hospital, Hannah meets all of the people who have been basically running Gatlin since the first film. Cora, her mentally handicapped brother Jake, Dr. Michaels, and the young Gabriel. While visiting Dr. Michaels, she finds out that the accident just left a bump on her head and she was not charged of anything. However, when looking around the hospital, she is chased down by Jake. He warns her that, "Only you can stop Isaac." Hannah touches Isaac’s hand and he becomes conscious for a second. That is when she meets Gabriel. But they let Hannah go to the local hotel, with this happening because she has to find out about the prophecy herself. At the hotel she meets Matt and Morgan, both who hate living in Gatlin.
The next day, Isaac has re-awakened fully. It turns out to be a full 19 years since the original film, and Isaac has a son - Matt. Matt is thought to be "the born child". Also that day - with Gabriel’s help, Hannah tries to find her birth certificate to help her kind her mother. Almost being killed by Jake, Hannah finds that someone took her birth certificate and paperwork and stuck it against a filing cabinet with a sickle. Later that night, about to take a shower, Hannah find in the shower a message drawn in blood: "GET OUT OR DIE!" She sees the perpetrator get into a truck and tries to follower her with no prevail.
The next day, we find out that Isaac has taken residence in the local church. Here, we find out about the prophecy and we also see that Hannah is actually the daughter of Rachel (the girl who stabs Burt and gets knocked out at the end of the first film and wife of Amos). Rachel is keeping a cover though that her baby is dead. But people question it since if that were true, then why are events in the prophecy coming true? Once everyone is gone, Isaac puts out a candle. But accouple of seconds later, it has mysteriously relit itself…
Hannah decides to look for the grave site where she is supposedly buried under the pseudonym "Baby Colby". After having another vision of Zachariah’s blood dripping her all over her. After the vision, Hannah and Rachel meet. Hannah asks why she, Rachel, forsaken her. Rachel did not want her to have anything to do with this and wanted to spare her from a life with Isaac - who Rachel now admits ruined everyone’s who related to the cult’s lives. But this is not stopping Isaac from doing much, including killing Dr. Michael by electrocution…
In the cornfield, Isaac and Gabriel meet and have a brief quarrel. Evidently Gabriel has his own set of values and starts toying with Isaac. Later that night, the ceremony begins with Matt being marked as being the first of the born. But this means that while Rachel had a son, it was not Amos’ son but rather Isaac’s! Plus, if he is to be with Hannah, the first born daughter, then Morgan is going to be jealous. So later that night, when the children try to get Hannah, Morgan helps Hannah get away (and Gabriel helps too later on the line). For her arrogance, Isaac executes Morgan, saying "In the name of He Who Walks Behind the Rows, I will execute judgment upon her."
Gabriel takes Hannah to a barn in which he has a collection of something: all the weapons that helped kill the adults in the original film. But not soon enough does a drunk Matt scare the hell out of Hannah. He is drunk because his girlfriend is killed, who he is to have a child with is predetermined by destiny, and since it is his 19th birthday, he will have to go into the corn and walk with He Who Walks Behind The Rows. Gabriel makes Matt go away (later kills him) and gives Hanna something she has been wanting: a shower. This would lead to Gabriel also being sprayed down with a hose and both of them submitting themselves to intercourse.
It is now midnight and Isaac’s prophecy from 19 years ago has not come to pass. This is pointed out by Rachel. For her insolence, Isaac and Cora take Rachel to the boiler room at Gatlin County Hospital for punishment - and to make Hannah have visions (since it is concluded that Hannah’s vision is born of pain). So Cora breaks a chair and with one of the legs beats Rachel - each one giving Hannah a vision of what is happening. So she goes to Gatlin County Hospital and sees what is happening. Gabriel comes also. Though the closer he gets, the more people he encounters that want to kill him, "for Isaac".
Just as soon Hannah comes into the boiler room, Gabriel also. Gabriel that Isaac stole his birthright from him. Gabriel is claiming that he was the first born male child of the children and that Isaac wanted it for his own son only. But through the earlier intercourse scene, the prophecy was fulfilled with Gabriel doing all of the work. But who else would know this except that Gabriel IS HE WHO WALKS BEHIND THE ROWS! Gabriel rises up to the air and uses a metal pole to kill Isaac. Afterwards, he lets Hannah and Rachel go out to start a new breed of children as Gabriel basically kills himself since after being stabbed with a sickle by Rachel, he pulls the sickle down his stomach and after Rachel and Hanna got out, burned Gatlin County Hospital. Hannah will now birth the child that shall lead us all. "And a child will lead them."
Critique
With "Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return", we now enter a third continuity in the Children of the Corn franchise. The first would be films one through three, the second could be accounted as an "Alternate reality" series in which all of the films are unrelated to each other. But this film starts a third series since it ignores all but the original film. This could have been something good. There was so much potential in this film, especially with the thick ties to the original and John Franklin not only is coming pack playing the role that made him famous - Isaac- but was also writing. But what went wrong?
Through out the film seems to be in continuity with the first film, the dating what happened in the film is more in line with the original short story by Stephen King. I make this observation by taking in consideration that the film takes place in the year it was made, 1999, and then take into consideration that the event of the original took place 19 years earlier. That would have made it 1978; which makes what happens in the film more of a sequel to the short story more than the original film (the short story was published in 1978 in the Stephen King Compilation novel, "Night Shift").
It is actually nice, all of the subtle connections that are in this film that connect it with the original. There’s Isaac. John Franklin being back for his signature role so that is a major plus. Second, the cover art for the DVD/VHS release has the silhouette of the hand holding the sickle on it. Third we have more returning characters, most notably Rachel, who was Amos’s wife from the original (and the girl which Burt knocked out and was stabbed by in the original).
But, what about the cast? There are only two people who I can actually respect in the cast. First would be John Franklin for reasons all to predictable and Stacey Keach. Stacey Keach, for those of you who are fans of cult cinema like I am, would notice him as Sarge Stadenko from "Cheech and Chong’s ‘Up In Smoke’" and as an army official in "John Carpenter’s Escape From LA". The rest, while good actors, are not people which I can like. And is more of the script’s fault than anything.
The major problem with the script - other than obviously seeing what influence John Franklin had on it (Isaac’s dialogue and the mannerisms of the corn cult) is that there is barely any killing of the adult characters except for Stacey Keach’s character (Dr. Michaels) and that most of the people are older than 19 years. Shouldn’t they have at one of the ceremonies in the film (there are two) given themselves to He Who Walks Behind the Rows? And then comes the biggest offence in the film: the depiction of the God of the Corn, the God of the Old Testament: He Who Walks Behind the Rows. He Who Walks Behind The Rows is Gabriel. This is just bad. The way he does things is bad because that is not what the He Who Walks Behind the Rows we all know and love would do things. And why do things like that? It would have been better if we had some children (which this film is short of) become possessed like Micha and force Isaac to be - like Amos - sacrificed to He Who Walks Behind The Rows. But just to make things easier - they made him human and make him a punk of a teenager. And the ending, Hannah having his baby, is just brainless and leaves room for a sequel (which will never be fulfilled) even though the marketing for this film claimed that this was going to be the last film in the series.
Plus, and this is something which I deem mandatory in my opinion, where is the stock footage? That would have been to great help with this film. Though the film would clash with the film of the new film. Which comes to another question: why is the film annoyingly filmed with almost everything looking corn stalk yellow? No, I did not just answer my own question, especially since it looks horrible. It may have looked good when Ryuhei Kitamura did it when he directed, "Versus", but not here.
The soundtrack just isn’t there. But then again, the soundtrack for the films since "Urban Harvest" has never been released so we can just skip that. Though what we do hear in the film is - all except the scene where Cora says "As if it ever stopped" - is all tasteless. It does not fit well with the mood of a Children of the Corn film and the two songs used in the film make no sense. As if two artists asked Dimension to include their songs in a film just for advertisement or just for the hell of it. This is some brain whacking reasons.
Overall, the film is just a poor excuse for another film in the series. It is not as bad as the last two entries in the series, but it is not as good as the original continuity. Just a really poor release. But what can you expect from direct-to-video films like this? It’s an ok film. It must be given credit for what it sets out to do but never truly accomplishes. 2/5
Production Notes:
"Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return" was chosen as the sixth installment to the series and was for a time marketed as the last film. The most attractive part of this film would the use of John Franklin, who once told Empire magazine‘s David Hughes, "Hollywood casting directors don’t exhibit much imagination when it comes to an actor who is five feet tall, so I’ll just have to write my own movies."
With this idea, John decided to go to Dimension and pitch his return to the franchise. Franklin would go on to say, "We lucked out by getting to them just as the project was beginning. We worked our butts off with the writing - it is so difficult to write and try to please six or seven producers and Bob Weinstein".
However, things in the horror genre were changing. Thanks to 1995’s SCREAM and it’s subsequent franchise, Dimension looked for a different type of sequel. In some Keri Skogland. Skogland would go on to tell Cinefantastique writer Dan Scapperotti, "All the other ones [installments] which kind of have their own life, own look, were not relevant to this story. This story was really Isaac." Keri would go on to say that the film was, "a reality-driven movie". The director would go on to say, "The mandate was to make a horror film that was smarter and cooler and more happening." "Given all the constraints, only so many locations and speaking parks, and just about zero special effects, I think it turned out better than I would have thought possible" said Franklin.
Principle photography took place in and around Los Angeles, California in November 1998. Production was headed by Blue Rider Pictures, who were known for making sequels for horror films, hence their moniker "sequel specialists". The company would go on to find and use two different cornfield for the film.
"Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return" was released 10 months later on DVD on October 19, 1999 (the VHS release would get a later release date of August 1, 2000) and would be released in the United Kingdom eighteen months later. The film was straight to video in most countries, but Amsterdam did allow a limited theatrical release of the film.
The kid with the denim jacket who is first found on the porch of the hotel, then in Hannah’s car, and finally closing the door to Hannah’s room was actually a visitor to the set, named Daniel. His visits were so often that they added him as a "why not" factor.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Chapter 9: "Children of the Corn: Revelation"
Plot:
Worried about a lack of communication between the two, Jamie goes to Omaha, Nebraska to search for her grandmother, who has lived her whole life in Nebraska.
In the run down building, Jamie finds the most unlikely set of people. A cripple, a junkie, a stripper, even a paranoid man who packs a lot of heat. Associating only with the stripper, Jamie finds other strange characters: a lonely convenient store employee and a scared priest who walks the streets.
Jamie tries to do the most logical thing: go to the local law enforcement. Even the law enforcement (who also serves as a potential love interest) can’t find much information on Jamie’s grandmother. However, a mysterious cornfield is growing outside of the hotel.
One after another, Jamie is experiencing ominous occurrences. Pale children come up to her and stare. She finds out that her grandmother - a life long atheist - is keeping a Bible on her night stand. Jamie has nightmares of a young girl with resemblance to her grandmother going up a flight of stairs and spewing out corn kernels.
When she goes back to the police, Jamie finds out that when her grandmother was a child, there was a corn cult which at the time of most uncertainty due to law enforcement engagement, burned themselves in their tent in the local corn field. Only one person survived. Just happened to be Jamie’s grandmother.
As all of this is happening, the children - who are more like ghosts now - are killing the residents of the hotel one by one. However, when they are killed, the adults turn into children themselves. Once an adult is killed, a corn reef is placed onto the door.
When Jamie is the last one, the priest comes and gives her communion, in hopes that she will be safe. She makes it back down stairs safely, surviving an explosion and some attempts of killing by the kids. But one a cornfield starts growing on the main floor and it grabs a hold of Jamie, it is the potential love interest which saves her. As the smoke billows, the souls of the children snared by the corn cult are finally placed in peace.
Review:
I am not too keen on this one. By this time, it has been proven that nothing can reach the level which the original three films reached. The fourth film was a stand alone, the fifth film really was a big WTF in your face, and the sixth film has so much potential which was wasted since you can tell it was geared towards a teen audience and not fans.
The acting here is across the board, and it should come to no surprise that it is Michael Ironside as the priest which makes off with the best performance. Claudette Mink as Jamie is an ok performance of a character who seems a little stuck up. Everyone else is just across the board.
The direction by Guy Magar offers some interesting looks, but offers nothing really new to the film. Just another standalone film which while using some of the material which the original source had, totally reconstructs the whole Children of the Corn mythology.
Production Notes:
Production details about this film were luckily released by those few who had a website dedicated to "Children of the Corn" at the time. With that, it is known that one of the original concepts for this film was that two FBI agents are tracking down a serial killer to Gatlin, Nebraska where they learn of the killer’s roots in the corn cult. The title for this concept for the film was "Children of the Corn: Resurrection", but it never came to pass. Though along with this information came a rumor that on March 12, 2001 that the film was in post-production, but that was proven false. However, a detail proven true was that the film was filmed in Vancouver, Canada and some clips in Los Angeles, California (the film takes place in Omaha, Nebraska, mind you).
Coming up to the director’s plate was cult director Guy Magar, who made a successful career out of doing bit director parts for many TV shows and movies, including having some experience in horror direction an installment in another cult horror series, "The Stepfather 3". Guy was hired because Bob Weinstein was a fan of his and they were looking for a project they can co-head together. So was chosen this installment of the "Children of the Corn" series. When interviewed about it, Guy said that Bob’s final idea for the film was, "a ghost story in a tenement building a la The Shining," (in another interview, Guy worded it as, "The Shining as a low budget film in a tenement building.)" Guy Magar interpreted this as a chance to make a suspense film rather a horror film.
Guy Magar worked with Sally Smith to write the screenplay for this film, which was prepared in Los Angeles, California. In an interview, "First off, when you take on a picture that is a sequel, especially one based on Stephen King material, you are walking a fine line between staying true to the original concept and making it fresh for the new audience of the picture. Sally Smith, the writer, and I focused as much as we could on keeping that very fine balance. The picture used to have a much larger opening before the girl arrives to find her missing grandmother -- and when we were editing the picture, we found that we had given away too much information in the beginning and not kept enough of a mystery, yet we couldn't get rid of all of it because the story was based on the grandmother, what happens to her and the history behind it." The script went through six weeks of revisions.
When asked more about his director/writer relationship with Sally Smith, Guy Magar said that everyone was happy, which was a sign that everyone’s vision was achieved with the film. But also he talked about how writer/director interpretation worked out, "All of those things were my choice and here is why. First off, for the reveal of the head in the freezer ... in the script it says she leaves the store, and we move to the freezer and find the head of the guy who ran the convenience store. Now this is a very interesting question in how a director interprets the writer. The writer here in L.A. may not have had a very specific location in mind, and one of the problems a director has is to visually interpret that location. Where is the camera? How can we build up the suspense? I decided to take something as innocent as a gallon of milk, show blood on it, and then reveal the man's head above it on the freezer. This is an example of directing and interpreting the visual story as the milk was not scripted. For the train, in the beginning of the screenplay, it says the grandmother comes out looking for the whispering children. She gets run over by a truck. Location scouting in a new city like Vancouver, this Gothic sinister-looking building (which was the primary location) was not easy to find. So when we found one that would set the mood for evil forces lurking inside, we had to make the decision to deal with train tracks twenty feet from the building (trains would go by every hour, and sometimes twice an hour) or keep our three location scouts looking. It became a big decision to put up with this incredible problem that could cost us a lot of money if we don't make our days. Finally the decision was made by my producers (Michael Leahy and Lauren Feige) and myself that it was worth it. Then I thought, why can't Hattie get hit by a train versus a truck? The train ended up adding production value and weirdness that this apartment building was so close to the tracks. In reality, it is a storage house, no one lives there. The train became part of the story and part of the geographic mood of the movie. So no, it wasn't scripted."
Though when asked about the casting, Guy tried to pick cute kids since he claimed that the kids in the original films looked "hardened". Plus, along with the fact that they were shooting in Canada, also had to have the kids be from Canada. Guy also talked about the table read of the screenplay, "The entire cast had to come from Canada due to the financial breaks. The table reading was the day before shooting! We got a green light 3 weeks prior to the film. This was the shortest prep I have ever had. We also had to wait for Bob Weinstein to look at the casting tapes to approve the lead actress, Claudette Mink. We then did a table reading where the writer was not present as she was in L.A. Any script changes or notes I made quickly that evening myself with my producer's approval because they were minor and we were under the gun." But also in the interview question something comes up: how Guy interpreted the original Stephen King story, claiming that he thoughts it was, "children overtaken by evil forces." This seems to be questionable.
Though the biggest actor in this film was Claudette Mink, who plays the main protagonist. "The first scene in the movie, she gets dropped off by a taxi cab driver who happens to be me (I play the same cabdriver in every one of my features. Why should actors have all the fun?) I look at the tenement building and say "Lots of luck" to her. As an inside joke, as the director, I am saying lots of luck to the actress for what she's about to go through. Claudette Mink is an unusual actress I met in a "Welcome to Paradox" episode and then she guest-starred for me in a "Sliders" episode. She has such a wide range as an actress. She brings to the table no fear, and is very rugged. So I was not worried about going through the paces with her. As I knew she would, she rolled up her sleeves and pushed through nailing a lot of emotional scenes, and uncomfortable action sequences. It is part of the director's job to nurture and inspire the actor at any moment in any scene to give their best performance. If she had to do ten takes of screaming, then it was important for me to make her comfortable enough during the day and remind her 'what this was about', to keep her focused. The rest is her great talent and concentration. The great part about working with actors the second and third time is that you build a bond there, a trust, and a lot of what happens on the set between an actor and a director is based on that trust. If you say "That was really great ... but I need it three times bigger," you get it. The actor trusts that you do need it three times bigger and you are not pushing them for no reason."
Guy also talked about the positives about him being hired as the director, mostly because of the $2 million and below budget. "You have to be real careful about how you plan on doing effects. You have to sit down with your production manager and budget it out. What is best for the story? What can be eliminated or changed? What can be done physically if that is cheaper than CGI. Making those decisions, you almost need as a director to have a producing background to know what things cost, and the quickest and faster way to execute. I have an advantage in doing so for two reasons: first, I come from television and in TV you have to think very quickly on your feet and on set. Second, I have also produced my previous films, so I come from an indie producing background, and therefore I have worked on my own budgets and know how to juggle and what things cost. Once you have made those decisions of what will be done on set or not, you sit down with your DP. I am very camera oriented, so I have a visual feel for the picture. What is the mood I am looking for here? Do we want shadows? Do we want backlight? There is a lot of communication involved and I guide the DP in what directions to go including the moody visual effects you mentioned."
Another one of those decisions was the filming of the death of the drug addict in the film. "This is one of the moments where you think about pacing the picture as it can't be scary the whole time. Your story won't have any depth and it will become boring. The first thing is to humanize the characters and you do that so people really freak out when they are disposed. In this BBQ scene, pothead Jerry is relaxing, drinking, smoking a joint, listening to music, and waiting for this beautiful girl he invited to come up for a BBQ (in the film's case, grilled Corn). The mood and the setting had to be in such a way where you had no idea what the scene was going to develop into. The more you do that as a visual director, the more interesting your movie twists are and the more interested the audience is going to be getting sucked into the story."
Which brings up another interesting part of the film: the cast for the other people in the hotel with Jamie. Guy Magar had this to say on the matter, "When I came aboard, there were a lot more characters living in the building in the script and that was one of the reasons I liked the screenplay. But we got rid of some characters in the last revisions and then in the editing process as the storytelling focused to the few you mentioned who all were wonderful. The great thing about filmmaking is, you start with a screenplay, the writer's vision, but the translation of that vision to the screen becomes a different process. Some of the moments that worked on paper didn't work on film, or some of the moments not emphasized on paper become vital to the film. There is a big difference between enriching the story with a lot of details, and staying "on story." Usually, if you don't catch it at the screenwriting stage, you are going to catch it at the editing stage. In the world of independent filmmaking, where budgets and schedules are so crucial, you try and streamline the screenplay as close as humanly possible to what scenes and characters are absolutely necessary and will focus and pace the story. Try to answer these questions in the script stage because by the editorial stage it will have cost you a lot more money."
The film would be released onto VHS and DVD on October 9, 2001 - just in time for the Halloween season.
Worried about a lack of communication between the two, Jamie goes to Omaha, Nebraska to search for her grandmother, who has lived her whole life in Nebraska.
In the run down building, Jamie finds the most unlikely set of people. A cripple, a junkie, a stripper, even a paranoid man who packs a lot of heat. Associating only with the stripper, Jamie finds other strange characters: a lonely convenient store employee and a scared priest who walks the streets.
Jamie tries to do the most logical thing: go to the local law enforcement. Even the law enforcement (who also serves as a potential love interest) can’t find much information on Jamie’s grandmother. However, a mysterious cornfield is growing outside of the hotel.
One after another, Jamie is experiencing ominous occurrences. Pale children come up to her and stare. She finds out that her grandmother - a life long atheist - is keeping a Bible on her night stand. Jamie has nightmares of a young girl with resemblance to her grandmother going up a flight of stairs and spewing out corn kernels.
When she goes back to the police, Jamie finds out that when her grandmother was a child, there was a corn cult which at the time of most uncertainty due to law enforcement engagement, burned themselves in their tent in the local corn field. Only one person survived. Just happened to be Jamie’s grandmother.
As all of this is happening, the children - who are more like ghosts now - are killing the residents of the hotel one by one. However, when they are killed, the adults turn into children themselves. Once an adult is killed, a corn reef is placed onto the door.
When Jamie is the last one, the priest comes and gives her communion, in hopes that she will be safe. She makes it back down stairs safely, surviving an explosion and some attempts of killing by the kids. But one a cornfield starts growing on the main floor and it grabs a hold of Jamie, it is the potential love interest which saves her. As the smoke billows, the souls of the children snared by the corn cult are finally placed in peace.
Review:
I am not too keen on this one. By this time, it has been proven that nothing can reach the level which the original three films reached. The fourth film was a stand alone, the fifth film really was a big WTF in your face, and the sixth film has so much potential which was wasted since you can tell it was geared towards a teen audience and not fans.
The acting here is across the board, and it should come to no surprise that it is Michael Ironside as the priest which makes off with the best performance. Claudette Mink as Jamie is an ok performance of a character who seems a little stuck up. Everyone else is just across the board.
The direction by Guy Magar offers some interesting looks, but offers nothing really new to the film. Just another standalone film which while using some of the material which the original source had, totally reconstructs the whole Children of the Corn mythology.
Production Notes:
Production details about this film were luckily released by those few who had a website dedicated to "Children of the Corn" at the time. With that, it is known that one of the original concepts for this film was that two FBI agents are tracking down a serial killer to Gatlin, Nebraska where they learn of the killer’s roots in the corn cult. The title for this concept for the film was "Children of the Corn: Resurrection", but it never came to pass. Though along with this information came a rumor that on March 12, 2001 that the film was in post-production, but that was proven false. However, a detail proven true was that the film was filmed in Vancouver, Canada and some clips in Los Angeles, California (the film takes place in Omaha, Nebraska, mind you).
Coming up to the director’s plate was cult director Guy Magar, who made a successful career out of doing bit director parts for many TV shows and movies, including having some experience in horror direction an installment in another cult horror series, "The Stepfather 3". Guy was hired because Bob Weinstein was a fan of his and they were looking for a project they can co-head together. So was chosen this installment of the "Children of the Corn" series. When interviewed about it, Guy said that Bob’s final idea for the film was, "a ghost story in a tenement building a la The Shining," (in another interview, Guy worded it as, "The Shining as a low budget film in a tenement building.)" Guy Magar interpreted this as a chance to make a suspense film rather a horror film.
Guy Magar worked with Sally Smith to write the screenplay for this film, which was prepared in Los Angeles, California. In an interview, "First off, when you take on a picture that is a sequel, especially one based on Stephen King material, you are walking a fine line between staying true to the original concept and making it fresh for the new audience of the picture. Sally Smith, the writer, and I focused as much as we could on keeping that very fine balance. The picture used to have a much larger opening before the girl arrives to find her missing grandmother -- and when we were editing the picture, we found that we had given away too much information in the beginning and not kept enough of a mystery, yet we couldn't get rid of all of it because the story was based on the grandmother, what happens to her and the history behind it." The script went through six weeks of revisions.
When asked more about his director/writer relationship with Sally Smith, Guy Magar said that everyone was happy, which was a sign that everyone’s vision was achieved with the film. But also he talked about how writer/director interpretation worked out, "All of those things were my choice and here is why. First off, for the reveal of the head in the freezer ... in the script it says she leaves the store, and we move to the freezer and find the head of the guy who ran the convenience store. Now this is a very interesting question in how a director interprets the writer. The writer here in L.A. may not have had a very specific location in mind, and one of the problems a director has is to visually interpret that location. Where is the camera? How can we build up the suspense? I decided to take something as innocent as a gallon of milk, show blood on it, and then reveal the man's head above it on the freezer. This is an example of directing and interpreting the visual story as the milk was not scripted. For the train, in the beginning of the screenplay, it says the grandmother comes out looking for the whispering children. She gets run over by a truck. Location scouting in a new city like Vancouver, this Gothic sinister-looking building (which was the primary location) was not easy to find. So when we found one that would set the mood for evil forces lurking inside, we had to make the decision to deal with train tracks twenty feet from the building (trains would go by every hour, and sometimes twice an hour) or keep our three location scouts looking. It became a big decision to put up with this incredible problem that could cost us a lot of money if we don't make our days. Finally the decision was made by my producers (Michael Leahy and Lauren Feige) and myself that it was worth it. Then I thought, why can't Hattie get hit by a train versus a truck? The train ended up adding production value and weirdness that this apartment building was so close to the tracks. In reality, it is a storage house, no one lives there. The train became part of the story and part of the geographic mood of the movie. So no, it wasn't scripted."
Though when asked about the casting, Guy tried to pick cute kids since he claimed that the kids in the original films looked "hardened". Plus, along with the fact that they were shooting in Canada, also had to have the kids be from Canada. Guy also talked about the table read of the screenplay, "The entire cast had to come from Canada due to the financial breaks. The table reading was the day before shooting! We got a green light 3 weeks prior to the film. This was the shortest prep I have ever had. We also had to wait for Bob Weinstein to look at the casting tapes to approve the lead actress, Claudette Mink. We then did a table reading where the writer was not present as she was in L.A. Any script changes or notes I made quickly that evening myself with my producer's approval because they were minor and we were under the gun." But also in the interview question something comes up: how Guy interpreted the original Stephen King story, claiming that he thoughts it was, "children overtaken by evil forces." This seems to be questionable.
Though the biggest actor in this film was Claudette Mink, who plays the main protagonist. "The first scene in the movie, she gets dropped off by a taxi cab driver who happens to be me (I play the same cabdriver in every one of my features. Why should actors have all the fun?) I look at the tenement building and say "Lots of luck" to her. As an inside joke, as the director, I am saying lots of luck to the actress for what she's about to go through. Claudette Mink is an unusual actress I met in a "Welcome to Paradox" episode and then she guest-starred for me in a "Sliders" episode. She has such a wide range as an actress. She brings to the table no fear, and is very rugged. So I was not worried about going through the paces with her. As I knew she would, she rolled up her sleeves and pushed through nailing a lot of emotional scenes, and uncomfortable action sequences. It is part of the director's job to nurture and inspire the actor at any moment in any scene to give their best performance. If she had to do ten takes of screaming, then it was important for me to make her comfortable enough during the day and remind her 'what this was about', to keep her focused. The rest is her great talent and concentration. The great part about working with actors the second and third time is that you build a bond there, a trust, and a lot of what happens on the set between an actor and a director is based on that trust. If you say "That was really great ... but I need it three times bigger," you get it. The actor trusts that you do need it three times bigger and you are not pushing them for no reason."
Guy also talked about the positives about him being hired as the director, mostly because of the $2 million and below budget. "You have to be real careful about how you plan on doing effects. You have to sit down with your production manager and budget it out. What is best for the story? What can be eliminated or changed? What can be done physically if that is cheaper than CGI. Making those decisions, you almost need as a director to have a producing background to know what things cost, and the quickest and faster way to execute. I have an advantage in doing so for two reasons: first, I come from television and in TV you have to think very quickly on your feet and on set. Second, I have also produced my previous films, so I come from an indie producing background, and therefore I have worked on my own budgets and know how to juggle and what things cost. Once you have made those decisions of what will be done on set or not, you sit down with your DP. I am very camera oriented, so I have a visual feel for the picture. What is the mood I am looking for here? Do we want shadows? Do we want backlight? There is a lot of communication involved and I guide the DP in what directions to go including the moody visual effects you mentioned."
Another one of those decisions was the filming of the death of the drug addict in the film. "This is one of the moments where you think about pacing the picture as it can't be scary the whole time. Your story won't have any depth and it will become boring. The first thing is to humanize the characters and you do that so people really freak out when they are disposed. In this BBQ scene, pothead Jerry is relaxing, drinking, smoking a joint, listening to music, and waiting for this beautiful girl he invited to come up for a BBQ (in the film's case, grilled Corn). The mood and the setting had to be in such a way where you had no idea what the scene was going to develop into. The more you do that as a visual director, the more interesting your movie twists are and the more interested the audience is going to be getting sucked into the story."
Which brings up another interesting part of the film: the cast for the other people in the hotel with Jamie. Guy Magar had this to say on the matter, "When I came aboard, there were a lot more characters living in the building in the script and that was one of the reasons I liked the screenplay. But we got rid of some characters in the last revisions and then in the editing process as the storytelling focused to the few you mentioned who all were wonderful. The great thing about filmmaking is, you start with a screenplay, the writer's vision, but the translation of that vision to the screen becomes a different process. Some of the moments that worked on paper didn't work on film, or some of the moments not emphasized on paper become vital to the film. There is a big difference between enriching the story with a lot of details, and staying "on story." Usually, if you don't catch it at the screenwriting stage, you are going to catch it at the editing stage. In the world of independent filmmaking, where budgets and schedules are so crucial, you try and streamline the screenplay as close as humanly possible to what scenes and characters are absolutely necessary and will focus and pace the story. Try to answer these questions in the script stage because by the editorial stage it will have cost you a lot more money."
The film would be released onto VHS and DVD on October 9, 2001 - just in time for the Halloween season.
Chapter 10: "Children of the Corn" (2009)
Synopsis:
One day in 1963, a boy preacher gathers a bunch a children. The unnamed boy preacher claims that the drought in Gatlin, Nebraska is due to the sinning of the adults of the town. The only way to bring back the corn is to kill all of the adults over the age of 19 and worship a God of the Old Testament, a God of Sacrifice, a God who was old before Jesus was conceived.
12 years later, Vietnam veteran Burt and his wife Vicky are driving cross country to California. Amidst one of their usual arguments, the run over a boy. Vicky - thinking that the that the car was the tool used to kill the boy, she learns from Burt that someone had cut his throat. Burt ventures into the endless corn rows and finds a suitcase. Afterwards, the couple get into the vehicle and continue to drive to Gatlin.
Meanwhile, in the corn, the new boy preacher - Isaac - bestows unto the children that he had a dream containing a premonition originating from God, He Who Walks Behind the Rows. He tells that outlanders are coming and as a test of the covenant that the children have with He Who Walks Behind the Rows, must sacrifice the outlanders themselves.
Burt and Vicky go to a café, a gas station, and a church. No one seems to be living in this town - something which is making Vicky very scared about. Burt and Vicky continue to argue till Burt just leaves her - with him taking the car keys. Meanwhile, the children start to sneak up on Vicky. Burt goes into the church and sees sights which every God-fearing Christian would call blasphemy - including an extensive editing of the King James Bible.
Vicky stays in the car, till the children start surrounding her. The children are being led by Isaac from a roof top. Soon, the children start wrecking the car Vicky is in. She honks the horn but Burt ignores it - taking it as the "little boy called wolf" commenting. Soon afterwards, Burt comes back out and Vicky is gone. After that, Malachai blows up the car. The kids fight Burt in an alley - but it doesn’t prevail. Off of the roof top, Isaac makes a declaration and throws a knife into Burt’s arm. Burt takes it out and breaks it. Then the chase is on into the corn. Hesitant at first till Isaac and a newly disciplined Malachai came. They start chasing Burt through out the corn, till Burt starts having Vietnam flashbacks which oddly enough help him navigate through the corn. By evening time, the children go to eat while Burt is in dismay as he realizes that he has killed little Children - something that must hurt after being spat on for the Vietnam War.
Burt finally makes it out of the corn in the evening. But he is in a clearing - where he sees on a cross in the shape of a "X" instead of a "t" Vicky and a decomposing Blue Man (a police man). While suffering through delusions of Vicky saying some rather scary stuff to him, He Who Walks Behind The Rows finishes the sacrifice himself.
The next day, due to the sacrifice not being done exactly how he wanted it, He Who Walks Behind The Rows lowers the permitted age limit from 19 to 18. That night, Malachai went into the corn to walk with He Who Walks Behind the Rows with other members - like Amos. Malachai’s wife doesn’t like it though and waits for the fall when the corn becomes flammable to burn it as revenge. However, Isaac is staring furiously at Ruth, knowing about the blasphemous thoughts she has concealed in her mind.
Review:
This new Children of the Corn film - first one in nine years and first good one in 16 (I love FS) delivers. Story wise, it is very true to the original short story. So true that it in fact copies lines from the book. Vicky and Burt are the biggest improvements because of this. Hell, they even made good use of the prom queen/Vietnam War backgrounds of the characters only hinted at in the short story. Plus a lot of things which were cut out of Burt’s visit to Gatlin’s one church were used great supplementary when we see the children worship.
Acting wise - it blows most of the films in the whole series and most SciFi Channel originals. But Burt and Vicky are from award winning shows ("Heroes" and "Battlestar Galactica", respectively) so it is not that shocking. Obviously a plus. The children are also a plus, including the new kid who is playing Isaac. John Franklin does make you have a feeling a "creepy", but this new kid - when he just looks at you like when he looks at Malachi’s wife at the end for her impure thoughts - can put dread into your chest. Just too bad he wars shorts a la Ichiro from "Godzilla’s Revenge".
Kudos have to go to some things though: one, Burt getting physical with some of the kids. Then we see some gruesome deaths of little kids. Damn, this film took over what Freddy was supposed to do. The corn does seem to have what King said was lacking to the original film adaptation, it does seem to have a persona of it’s own. Last but not least, they took the safe road and not done anything for a physical appearance for "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". They could have done something with some cheap CGI, and they could have made a cheap design or a very awesome design, but I like it that they kept it in the minds of viewers what He looks like.
But now, we got to go to the negatives. I was psyched when I heard that John Elias would be co-composing this film, including getting a separate credit for the use of the original theme. It would be the second time a composer came back for the series (the other being David Litch, COTC2 and COTC3) And I love the times which the editors decided to use the old theme, but honestly it could have been use a lot more and could have made the film more effective.
Another thing to bitch about is that no matter how true you want to stay with the book, two scenes from the original are in my opinion needed - badly. One was a redo of the coffee shop massacre and Joseph’s hunting down. Borchers being the master director for this material as he has shown, he would have done fantastic, especially since it would be different than the original’s version due to that I bet he would show the blood, but it was a missed opportunity. But then again, an Uncut version is coming out, but there comes another bad thing.
The uncut version may or may make the biggest sin of this production something which ruins it plainly: the ritual sex scene. What the hell were they thinking? "Children of the Corn" - the series - has been one of the only slasher series not to have sex in it ever. Part 3 got close but saved us and Revelations showed some nipple - but nothing sexual - just nudity. But this film, god, it was unneeded. What I would have liked to see was more preaching from Isaac or use the screen time for more killing. But honestly, it is just bad. Unneeded. That kind of stuff is just bad. It could have been one of those things we could have assumed.
Overall, it is my second favorite film in the series (the original is my favorite, FS is tied with this film). Another remake is being planned by Dimension and Borchers said in a report that he wants this film to spawn a TV series, so let’s just see what happens. Just too bad that Joe Harris’ idea from COTC8 has been scrapped by how things have been going as of late. 4/5
Production Notes
The development of this film is easily the most detailed I can provide. Apparently, back in 2008, many rumors were started. First was the rumor that a remake was even being done. Then there was also a rumor created in March of 2008 in which director of some of the Saw films and "Repo, The Genetic Opera!" Darren Lynn Bousman, except for that on his blog, Darren denied it though a blog entry, saying: "Ok... So lets start off with NO - I am not doing Children of the Corn... Yes - it is true I love the movie... Yes, it is true I once pretended to be Malachi running around the corn fields of Kansas City - but NO I will not be 'helming' the remake. However, three months later it was confirmed that Donald P. Borchers was to write and direct the film.
When asked about it, Donald P. Borchers said something among the likes of "I think we stepped up to the line, measured the distance to the dartboard and struck the bull’s-eye. From the script I submitted, not one word was changed because of an instruction from either the studio or the network, Not one line of dialogue was changed." Though is incorrect, since the film has a tacked on beginning and many of the extra scenes is composed from deleted material from Burt’s initial visit to Gatlin’s Baptist Church - now a church dedicated to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". He talked more in an interview saying, "Not one line of dialogue was changed. I made Stephen King's short story. It's faithful. We took a chance by not going with the traditional Hollywood structure and I think it paid off in spades." Because of the copied lines from the book, Stephen King was actually credited as a co-writer for the screenplay.
But Borchers seemed to show a mountable of disdain regarding the original is very evident. When asked about the project in it’s early stages, he creates the analogy of comparing the original film to a cup of coffee with creamer and sugar and that, Stephen King doesn’t take his coffee with sugar…it’s no longer requisite to have a happy ending. We wanted to stay faithful to the decisions in his original story."
Production officially began in August of 2008. The main cast was chosen in England, while the extras cast was chosen in and around the Quad State area. 1,000 - 2,000 children auditioned for the roles they got at "The Lodge" in Davenport, Iowa around August, 2008. "When we said we needed extras, heaven forbid. The enthusiasm from the people who wanted to volunteer to go on this crazy, educational learning journey of being in the film - what rewards we were given." But it did however, help some. Kandyse McClure found it as a reference point and even though not part of her childhood experience, "it was creepy". Though she picked the yellow dress she wore in the film.
Principle photography officially began in September 8th, 2007 for four weeks in Bettendorf, Davenport, LeClaire and Lost Nation, Iowa. Lost Nation was where most of the film was filmed - especially the town square where the car explosion takes place. Original filming locations originally were Tipton and Wilton since they looked, "too large and too prosperous". Though excite was built up when the sites were original purposed. Travis Elden, the community development leader of the town, said, "In my opinion, this is perfect timing as we are fresh off of our RAGBRAI success and the logistics planning required for that will be helpful with this project." Originally, Alden’s "Hardacre Theatre" on East 5th Street was to be featured. Just like the original film, it was something of a momentous occasion for the people who lived in and around the area they were filming. One town, Oxford Juncture (7 miles from Lost Nation), allowed the kids in a school to visit the set, meet the cast, and even see the filming of a scene. This is a lot more better than the burdens which plagued the production of the second film. On the first day of shooting, the wait for filming to start was lengthy. According to an article published after the film’s SciFi Channel premier in a Quad-state news paper, " the kids had to be on location at 7:30 a.m., but shooting didn't start until 4:30 P.M.… The kids played football and did homework." While the shooting took up four weeks, most of the scenes with just the Children with no real speaking lines other than "Praise God! Praise the Lord!" took only 10 days with the working day being 10-12 hours (the waiting is what makes it long, not the working. So the children were not what some critics called, "sweat shopped".)
The most important part of this whole production would be who made it. At the time of this writing, there is a rumor going around that Dimension wants to try to make their own "Children of the Corn" remake. Some fans were speculating about this. Could this have been just the way they came out with that this remake was going to have a theatrical release in Europe? No, since it turns out that even though Dimension owns the rights to the franchise’s future (and producer of all the "Children of the Corn" films from "Urban Harvest" to "Revelations") Anchor Bay - the copyright owners to the original film - and SciFi Channel - worked on this film without interference from Dimension. It will be nice to see what a third remake could bare. But the point is not a third remake, but that Anchor Bay and SciFi Channel made this without Dimension interfering. Maybe that is one of the reasons why this film was actually "good".
Everyone in the cast seemed to have a fun time with the film. Daniel Newman was interviewed and had this to day about the role: "I just got really excited about getting into Malachi's head," he says. "Knowing this movie was going to be closer to King's vision, I knew it was going to be a bit of task. I went into the audition in character. I covered myself in blood, rolled around in dirt, didn't wash my hair for days. I was driving around in L.A., windows up in the heat with no air conditioning and sweating my balls off. When I walked into the audition, I was a terrifying sight. When asked about the original, ""The first one was scary, but this takes away any campy elements that fell into it. Our film has a different ending, I like this ending much better. It's more of an adult conclusion and more satisfying." But then came the in the inevitable questioning about Malachai’s character in this film. "he's much more developed in this film. The original is more about the sadistic glances he gave, and there will be plenty of those, but here it's a much more fleshed-out role." The same could be said about the character's dynamic with Isaac. "The whole challenge between Isaac and Malachai is a lot stronger in this one. You didn't really see that until the end of the original. I mean, pretty much Malachai is worshipping Isaac through the whole thing, but in this one, he's got more of a leadership role and has a gang of...well, I shouldn't say much more."
On the topic of Preston Bailey, the child who plays Isaac in the film, he seems to have received some nice acclaim. D. Newman said, ""That kid is terrifying. He's so young and to see him handle such a big part is amazing. He's really on top of it." It shouldn’t be too much of a shock that Bailey is a good actor, since he is in another highly acclaimed show, Showtime’s "Dexter". In an interview, Preston liked being an antagonist since he usually got protagonist parts. But, there were the usual drawbacks, like the parents having cautionary thoughts regarding the film’s religious overtones - naturally. Though there is an interesting anecdote related to the filming of the scene where he coordinates the children to abduct Vicky: "…when I was up on the roof there were dummies I could see from the top of the room, and I get to throw a flame on dead people. It was fun." It is also crucial to note that Preston’s older brother, Brennan, plays as an extra as one of the children.
One thing which was brought up durring an interview with Borchers would be the subject of a television series to go along with this made-for-TV series. Borchers revealed that it depends on the remake’s ratings, but if so then he and David Simkins, Borcher’s former classmate from University Notre Dame and executive producer of "Warehouse 13" would work on it together. Though it would be interesting how they will tackle such a concept considering that it would either be a remake of a pre-existing movie or they do a story arc on the children themselves, something which would cut down on the horror edge of the Children of the Corn mythology.
Something interesting to analyze about the film is the film’s message which Donald P. Borchers claimed he tried to convey with this remake of the film: the culture of the religious extremists in the Middle East. This has been said to be the reason why the film is taking place in the 1970’s, though on the contrary, it would have to take place in the 1970’s since this is supposed to be word from word from the original short story. But what is Donald portraying in this film? He is not giving a message, he is just showing what he feels that the extremists act like. There is no real allegory to speak of hear. Though it is interesting seeing that a passage from the Bible is chosen to end the film from John 1 5:21, "Little Children, keep away from idols". This is something good though, since it helps keep the original’s message of blind worship alive.
This leads us to the biggest thing we need to acknowledge about this film: it is not a remake. It is a film which uses the same source material. This is a misconception, but this is to get it right. The only hints of the 1984 original film is that some of the lines from this film are copied from the original and maybe because of wanting to fallow suit, the iconic image of a kid’s arm with a bladed weapon from the theatrical poster of the original is on the side of the DVD release, therefore matching it up with the "Divimax" DVD release of this film. Though only time will tell when a box set will come out in the UK, with the first three films of the original series and this re-imagining.
An interesting scene to analyze is the beginning scene with the pig sacrifice. The scene is easily provides fans with one of the more intense beginnings for a "Children of the Corn" film - almost up to that of the original. However, once the pig is uncovered, we see that it is a fake prop pig filled most probably with corn-syrup blood. But what was in the shots with the bag pre-breaking of the pig’s neck? It was not a pig but actually one of the extras who played as one of the children - (at the time) 8 year old extra Donovan Klutho. To do this additional scene, he was paid $50 extra dollars - something which his brother (also one of the children in the film) got envious of. The tent scene was actually the last scene filmed, but it took a whole day to film it.
One day in 1963, a boy preacher gathers a bunch a children. The unnamed boy preacher claims that the drought in Gatlin, Nebraska is due to the sinning of the adults of the town. The only way to bring back the corn is to kill all of the adults over the age of 19 and worship a God of the Old Testament, a God of Sacrifice, a God who was old before Jesus was conceived.
12 years later, Vietnam veteran Burt and his wife Vicky are driving cross country to California. Amidst one of their usual arguments, the run over a boy. Vicky - thinking that the that the car was the tool used to kill the boy, she learns from Burt that someone had cut his throat. Burt ventures into the endless corn rows and finds a suitcase. Afterwards, the couple get into the vehicle and continue to drive to Gatlin.
Meanwhile, in the corn, the new boy preacher - Isaac - bestows unto the children that he had a dream containing a premonition originating from God, He Who Walks Behind the Rows. He tells that outlanders are coming and as a test of the covenant that the children have with He Who Walks Behind the Rows, must sacrifice the outlanders themselves.
Burt and Vicky go to a café, a gas station, and a church. No one seems to be living in this town - something which is making Vicky very scared about. Burt and Vicky continue to argue till Burt just leaves her - with him taking the car keys. Meanwhile, the children start to sneak up on Vicky. Burt goes into the church and sees sights which every God-fearing Christian would call blasphemy - including an extensive editing of the King James Bible.
Vicky stays in the car, till the children start surrounding her. The children are being led by Isaac from a roof top. Soon, the children start wrecking the car Vicky is in. She honks the horn but Burt ignores it - taking it as the "little boy called wolf" commenting. Soon afterwards, Burt comes back out and Vicky is gone. After that, Malachai blows up the car. The kids fight Burt in an alley - but it doesn’t prevail. Off of the roof top, Isaac makes a declaration and throws a knife into Burt’s arm. Burt takes it out and breaks it. Then the chase is on into the corn. Hesitant at first till Isaac and a newly disciplined Malachai came. They start chasing Burt through out the corn, till Burt starts having Vietnam flashbacks which oddly enough help him navigate through the corn. By evening time, the children go to eat while Burt is in dismay as he realizes that he has killed little Children - something that must hurt after being spat on for the Vietnam War.
Burt finally makes it out of the corn in the evening. But he is in a clearing - where he sees on a cross in the shape of a "X" instead of a "t" Vicky and a decomposing Blue Man (a police man). While suffering through delusions of Vicky saying some rather scary stuff to him, He Who Walks Behind The Rows finishes the sacrifice himself.
The next day, due to the sacrifice not being done exactly how he wanted it, He Who Walks Behind The Rows lowers the permitted age limit from 19 to 18. That night, Malachai went into the corn to walk with He Who Walks Behind the Rows with other members - like Amos. Malachai’s wife doesn’t like it though and waits for the fall when the corn becomes flammable to burn it as revenge. However, Isaac is staring furiously at Ruth, knowing about the blasphemous thoughts she has concealed in her mind.
Review:
This new Children of the Corn film - first one in nine years and first good one in 16 (I love FS) delivers. Story wise, it is very true to the original short story. So true that it in fact copies lines from the book. Vicky and Burt are the biggest improvements because of this. Hell, they even made good use of the prom queen/Vietnam War backgrounds of the characters only hinted at in the short story. Plus a lot of things which were cut out of Burt’s visit to Gatlin’s one church were used great supplementary when we see the children worship.
Acting wise - it blows most of the films in the whole series and most SciFi Channel originals. But Burt and Vicky are from award winning shows ("Heroes" and "Battlestar Galactica", respectively) so it is not that shocking. Obviously a plus. The children are also a plus, including the new kid who is playing Isaac. John Franklin does make you have a feeling a "creepy", but this new kid - when he just looks at you like when he looks at Malachi’s wife at the end for her impure thoughts - can put dread into your chest. Just too bad he wars shorts a la Ichiro from "Godzilla’s Revenge".
Kudos have to go to some things though: one, Burt getting physical with some of the kids. Then we see some gruesome deaths of little kids. Damn, this film took over what Freddy was supposed to do. The corn does seem to have what King said was lacking to the original film adaptation, it does seem to have a persona of it’s own. Last but not least, they took the safe road and not done anything for a physical appearance for "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". They could have done something with some cheap CGI, and they could have made a cheap design or a very awesome design, but I like it that they kept it in the minds of viewers what He looks like.
But now, we got to go to the negatives. I was psyched when I heard that John Elias would be co-composing this film, including getting a separate credit for the use of the original theme. It would be the second time a composer came back for the series (the other being David Litch, COTC2 and COTC3) And I love the times which the editors decided to use the old theme, but honestly it could have been use a lot more and could have made the film more effective.
Another thing to bitch about is that no matter how true you want to stay with the book, two scenes from the original are in my opinion needed - badly. One was a redo of the coffee shop massacre and Joseph’s hunting down. Borchers being the master director for this material as he has shown, he would have done fantastic, especially since it would be different than the original’s version due to that I bet he would show the blood, but it was a missed opportunity. But then again, an Uncut version is coming out, but there comes another bad thing.
The uncut version may or may make the biggest sin of this production something which ruins it plainly: the ritual sex scene. What the hell were they thinking? "Children of the Corn" - the series - has been one of the only slasher series not to have sex in it ever. Part 3 got close but saved us and Revelations showed some nipple - but nothing sexual - just nudity. But this film, god, it was unneeded. What I would have liked to see was more preaching from Isaac or use the screen time for more killing. But honestly, it is just bad. Unneeded. That kind of stuff is just bad. It could have been one of those things we could have assumed.
Overall, it is my second favorite film in the series (the original is my favorite, FS is tied with this film). Another remake is being planned by Dimension and Borchers said in a report that he wants this film to spawn a TV series, so let’s just see what happens. Just too bad that Joe Harris’ idea from COTC8 has been scrapped by how things have been going as of late. 4/5
Production Notes
The development of this film is easily the most detailed I can provide. Apparently, back in 2008, many rumors were started. First was the rumor that a remake was even being done. Then there was also a rumor created in March of 2008 in which director of some of the Saw films and "Repo, The Genetic Opera!" Darren Lynn Bousman, except for that on his blog, Darren denied it though a blog entry, saying: "Ok... So lets start off with NO - I am not doing Children of the Corn... Yes - it is true I love the movie... Yes, it is true I once pretended to be Malachi running around the corn fields of Kansas City - but NO I will not be 'helming' the remake. However, three months later it was confirmed that Donald P. Borchers was to write and direct the film.
When asked about it, Donald P. Borchers said something among the likes of "I think we stepped up to the line, measured the distance to the dartboard and struck the bull’s-eye. From the script I submitted, not one word was changed because of an instruction from either the studio or the network, Not one line of dialogue was changed." Though is incorrect, since the film has a tacked on beginning and many of the extra scenes is composed from deleted material from Burt’s initial visit to Gatlin’s Baptist Church - now a church dedicated to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". He talked more in an interview saying, "Not one line of dialogue was changed. I made Stephen King's short story. It's faithful. We took a chance by not going with the traditional Hollywood structure and I think it paid off in spades." Because of the copied lines from the book, Stephen King was actually credited as a co-writer for the screenplay.
But Borchers seemed to show a mountable of disdain regarding the original is very evident. When asked about the project in it’s early stages, he creates the analogy of comparing the original film to a cup of coffee with creamer and sugar and that, Stephen King doesn’t take his coffee with sugar…it’s no longer requisite to have a happy ending. We wanted to stay faithful to the decisions in his original story."
Production officially began in August of 2008. The main cast was chosen in England, while the extras cast was chosen in and around the Quad State area. 1,000 - 2,000 children auditioned for the roles they got at "The Lodge" in Davenport, Iowa around August, 2008. "When we said we needed extras, heaven forbid. The enthusiasm from the people who wanted to volunteer to go on this crazy, educational learning journey of being in the film - what rewards we were given." But it did however, help some. Kandyse McClure found it as a reference point and even though not part of her childhood experience, "it was creepy". Though she picked the yellow dress she wore in the film.
Principle photography officially began in September 8th, 2007 for four weeks in Bettendorf, Davenport, LeClaire and Lost Nation, Iowa. Lost Nation was where most of the film was filmed - especially the town square where the car explosion takes place. Original filming locations originally were Tipton and Wilton since they looked, "too large and too prosperous". Though excite was built up when the sites were original purposed. Travis Elden, the community development leader of the town, said, "In my opinion, this is perfect timing as we are fresh off of our RAGBRAI success and the logistics planning required for that will be helpful with this project." Originally, Alden’s "Hardacre Theatre" on East 5th Street was to be featured. Just like the original film, it was something of a momentous occasion for the people who lived in and around the area they were filming. One town, Oxford Juncture (7 miles from Lost Nation), allowed the kids in a school to visit the set, meet the cast, and even see the filming of a scene. This is a lot more better than the burdens which plagued the production of the second film. On the first day of shooting, the wait for filming to start was lengthy. According to an article published after the film’s SciFi Channel premier in a Quad-state news paper, " the kids had to be on location at 7:30 a.m., but shooting didn't start until 4:30 P.M.… The kids played football and did homework." While the shooting took up four weeks, most of the scenes with just the Children with no real speaking lines other than "Praise God! Praise the Lord!" took only 10 days with the working day being 10-12 hours (the waiting is what makes it long, not the working. So the children were not what some critics called, "sweat shopped".)
The most important part of this whole production would be who made it. At the time of this writing, there is a rumor going around that Dimension wants to try to make their own "Children of the Corn" remake. Some fans were speculating about this. Could this have been just the way they came out with that this remake was going to have a theatrical release in Europe? No, since it turns out that even though Dimension owns the rights to the franchise’s future (and producer of all the "Children of the Corn" films from "Urban Harvest" to "Revelations") Anchor Bay - the copyright owners to the original film - and SciFi Channel - worked on this film without interference from Dimension. It will be nice to see what a third remake could bare. But the point is not a third remake, but that Anchor Bay and SciFi Channel made this without Dimension interfering. Maybe that is one of the reasons why this film was actually "good".
Everyone in the cast seemed to have a fun time with the film. Daniel Newman was interviewed and had this to day about the role: "I just got really excited about getting into Malachi's head," he says. "Knowing this movie was going to be closer to King's vision, I knew it was going to be a bit of task. I went into the audition in character. I covered myself in blood, rolled around in dirt, didn't wash my hair for days. I was driving around in L.A., windows up in the heat with no air conditioning and sweating my balls off. When I walked into the audition, I was a terrifying sight. When asked about the original, ""The first one was scary, but this takes away any campy elements that fell into it. Our film has a different ending, I like this ending much better. It's more of an adult conclusion and more satisfying." But then came the in the inevitable questioning about Malachai’s character in this film. "he's much more developed in this film. The original is more about the sadistic glances he gave, and there will be plenty of those, but here it's a much more fleshed-out role." The same could be said about the character's dynamic with Isaac. "The whole challenge between Isaac and Malachai is a lot stronger in this one. You didn't really see that until the end of the original. I mean, pretty much Malachai is worshipping Isaac through the whole thing, but in this one, he's got more of a leadership role and has a gang of...well, I shouldn't say much more."
On the topic of Preston Bailey, the child who plays Isaac in the film, he seems to have received some nice acclaim. D. Newman said, ""That kid is terrifying. He's so young and to see him handle such a big part is amazing. He's really on top of it." It shouldn’t be too much of a shock that Bailey is a good actor, since he is in another highly acclaimed show, Showtime’s "Dexter". In an interview, Preston liked being an antagonist since he usually got protagonist parts. But, there were the usual drawbacks, like the parents having cautionary thoughts regarding the film’s religious overtones - naturally. Though there is an interesting anecdote related to the filming of the scene where he coordinates the children to abduct Vicky: "…when I was up on the roof there were dummies I could see from the top of the room, and I get to throw a flame on dead people. It was fun." It is also crucial to note that Preston’s older brother, Brennan, plays as an extra as one of the children.
One thing which was brought up durring an interview with Borchers would be the subject of a television series to go along with this made-for-TV series. Borchers revealed that it depends on the remake’s ratings, but if so then he and David Simkins, Borcher’s former classmate from University Notre Dame and executive producer of "Warehouse 13" would work on it together. Though it would be interesting how they will tackle such a concept considering that it would either be a remake of a pre-existing movie or they do a story arc on the children themselves, something which would cut down on the horror edge of the Children of the Corn mythology.
Something interesting to analyze about the film is the film’s message which Donald P. Borchers claimed he tried to convey with this remake of the film: the culture of the religious extremists in the Middle East. This has been said to be the reason why the film is taking place in the 1970’s, though on the contrary, it would have to take place in the 1970’s since this is supposed to be word from word from the original short story. But what is Donald portraying in this film? He is not giving a message, he is just showing what he feels that the extremists act like. There is no real allegory to speak of hear. Though it is interesting seeing that a passage from the Bible is chosen to end the film from John 1 5:21, "Little Children, keep away from idols". This is something good though, since it helps keep the original’s message of blind worship alive.
This leads us to the biggest thing we need to acknowledge about this film: it is not a remake. It is a film which uses the same source material. This is a misconception, but this is to get it right. The only hints of the 1984 original film is that some of the lines from this film are copied from the original and maybe because of wanting to fallow suit, the iconic image of a kid’s arm with a bladed weapon from the theatrical poster of the original is on the side of the DVD release, therefore matching it up with the "Divimax" DVD release of this film. Though only time will tell when a box set will come out in the UK, with the first three films of the original series and this re-imagining.
An interesting scene to analyze is the beginning scene with the pig sacrifice. The scene is easily provides fans with one of the more intense beginnings for a "Children of the Corn" film - almost up to that of the original. However, once the pig is uncovered, we see that it is a fake prop pig filled most probably with corn-syrup blood. But what was in the shots with the bag pre-breaking of the pig’s neck? It was not a pig but actually one of the extras who played as one of the children - (at the time) 8 year old extra Donovan Klutho. To do this additional scene, he was paid $50 extra dollars - something which his brother (also one of the children in the film) got envious of. The tent scene was actually the last scene filmed, but it took a whole day to film it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)