Starch Overload: Children of the Corn (2009)

Ladies and gentlemen, here is a film made entirely due to spite.  Back in 1984, a well-liked and successful film was made based on Stephen King's short-story.  Nobody could have predicted the deluge of bullshit sequels to come, but you can't blame the original film for that.  One man didn't like the film: Stephen King.  He was mad at a number of changes made, including adding a happy ending to the tale.  I get it.  I'm not nearly the accomplished Writer that King is- by a longshot-, but I get it.  That said, he's been a bit spiteful about this in the last decade or so.  Remember the 1997 mini-series version of The Shining?  You know, the one where That Other Guy From Wings was the lead and almost nothing was different?  Yeah, that one.  Well, this is in that same vein, although a Producer of the original is here too.  With no star power and no clear reason to exist, how good could this movie be?  To find out, read on...

It's a pretty close adaptation, given that it's meant to be closer to the book than the original film.  Here are some high/low points and differences...

* The time-gap is much longer between killing and our heroes' arrival.  How is the town ignored for 12 years?  How are these the first people to visit?

Oh yeah, I was pretty sure that the kid preacher in the opening was the one in the main story, but I guess not. That's unnecessarily-confusing, guys!

* One big change: our heroes are annoying assholes.  Yes, this is clearly something that the original film was lacking!  I want to hate the characters, not empathize with them!

* Here's a weird change for you: no scenes of the kids killing adults, but many scenes of our hero killing children.  That's...odd.

* Another change is that our hero wanders around a Cornfield and has Vietnam flashbacks.  Something like this is in the original story apparently, but it's still weird.

* Here's a bad change: He-Who-Walks-Behind-The-Rows kills our hero (from the story), but they never show it.  Yeah, that's better than the book's "giant red-eyed monster!!!"

* Obviously, the biggest change is that both of our heroes meet a grisly death.  However, for all of this adherence to the story...

...there's a Post-Credits scene in which Malachai's girlfriend/wife imagines burning the Cornfield.  In the Story, Malachai talks about it, but never does it.  Odd addition, guys!  The End.

This was a good reason to Remake the film?  If you like the original film, there's nothing wrong with you.  If you like the original story, there's nothing wrong with you.  However, if you Remake the only good film in the series just because it wasn't dark enough and had likable protagonists, you can go screw yourself!  Seriously, there's no point to this film, other than the changes I mentioned.  The acting is not better, the Production is not better and the overall feel is not better.  The same Pacing issue I had with the original- one of the few- is still here.  They nearly cut out all of the supernatural elements, but still kept the 'sentient corn stalks' and the implied monster appearing.  You could have cut all of that out, making for a more unique film- just a thought.  Was this all to make Stephen King like you, Producer Donald P. Borchers?  If so, it made all of us hate you.  Seriously, if you do watch this DVD, try to get through his explanation of why the film was made (in the Extras) without wanting to just punch him in the Spleen.  Take us away, silly corn Jesus (that deflates the terror)...

Next up, the absolutely-final Corn film (so far).  Will this 2011 film make up for the 2001 film?  Stay tuned...