“I spy, with my little eye, something that begins with the letter C.”
“Corn?”
“Right.”
I feel that in order for a movie to carry the title “cult classic” or to gather a “cult following,” it has to check a few boxes. Upon its initial release, the film is usually blasted with venomous criticism, met with a polarizing mainstream audience reaction, and has flirted with total obscurity after it leaves cinemas. Then if it is meant to be, time will be kind to the film. A new audience will discover this movie and sing its praises instead of damning it back from whence it came. At this point, the film may or may not be well known, but it will have a devoted fan base – like a cult – that will keep it alive for years to come.
RELATED: Retrospective: Shucking the ‘Children of the Corn’ Series
Looking back at Children of the Corn, I understand why it has a cult following today. I wouldn’t be so quick to call it a classic exactly, but more on that later. Released in 1984 on a modest budget of $800,000, Children of the Corn made $14.6 million at the box office, a healthy 1,725% increase. Low budget horror being marketable is not something movie studios scoff at, especially when the name Stephen King is attached to the title.
While it did find enough of an audience during its run to make money, Children of the Corn was torn apart by critics. Skimming through IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, I found the audience (at least the ones on the internet) didn’t much care for it either, scoring the film a 5.7 and 40% score rating, respectively.
Stephen King’s books mostly range from decent to great, however his film adaptations do not share that same grade. There have been faithful works made from his literature but there have been many, many more less-than-faithful, hard to watch disasters made as well. I won’t be listing any of either category because, frankly, life is too short. I will say that the Children of the Corn film shakes out in the middle. It is faithful up to a point to his original short story, first published in Penthouse in 1977, and later in his first collections book, Night Shift, in 1978. The licenses this movie takes are understandable to flesh out a story to fill a 90-minute run time.
RELATED: Book Review: Stephen King’s ‘Later’ is a Successful Blend of Mystery and Horror
Is this film super amazing?
No.
Does it embody what people have grown to love, expect, and sometimes lovingly parody about Stephen King?
Yes.
Regarding the source material, the film doesn’t extend much past keeping the setting, characters, and overall plot. But there is still fun to be had. Creepy kids, religious extremism, supernatural entities, a bickering couple (admittedly, more cordial here than they are in the short story), and lots of murder! I swear if Maine grew corn the way Nebraska does, the setting would’ve been there as well. King’s thumbprint is still all over the place here.
The story is simple enough. A young couple, Burt and Vicky (Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton), are on their way to Seattle for the boyfriend’s new internship as a physician. Their journey takes them through Gatlin, Nebraska, which has been overtaken by a religious cult of children.
(Gatlin is another King creation, having been referenced both in IT and The Dark Tower series, making this town a nice treat for all of King’s “constant readers.”)
RELATED: 13 Horror Movies that are Set in Small Towns
Years earlier, the children systematically murdered all adults in Gatlin in service of their mysterious deity, “He Who Walks Behind the Rows.” The town now sits, ostensibly closed, save for the clearing in the cornfield and the church. Peachy, right? There are two small children not part of the “flock,” of which the girl draws creepy premonition drawings of terrible things with crayons. These two children, Job (Robby Kiger) and Sarah (Anne Marie McEvoy), were added to pad the runtime and give exposition. As Burt and Vicky explore Gatlin in search of help after hitting a child on the road – an already mortally wounded cult victim, leaving Burt blameless – they are besieged by the corrupt youth. Vicky is captured and prepped to be sacrificed; Burt is relegated to male hero who fights crazy children. The third act is pure fantasy and action silliness compared to its source (the couple don’t make it too far in the short story).
Honestly, I actually enjoyed everyone’s performance. I especially liked the young antagonist Isaac (John Franklin) and his lieutenant, Malachai (Courtney Gains). They both ham it up as righteous hoodlums. Hamilton and Horton convey true wonder and fear as they unravel the horrible truth about Gatlin. There are some cheesy lines of dialogue throughout. Some hokey effects, even by 1984 standards, also crop up (no pun intended), but they arrive late and leave quickly.
RELATED: 40 Years Later: ‘The Howling’ Remains a Timeless Werewolf Film
Stepping over the irony of the story, why is this film cult-worthy? I still maintain that there is a difference between a cult film and cult classic, which is all personal preference and semantics. I feel cult classics tend to have a wider reach. Think The Big Lebowski or Clerks. Because it hits all the wickets required, Children of the Corn still joins the club. It was maligned upon release, despite making a pretty penny. It could be because the film blossomed into a franchise boasting 11 total entries to date that has kept its name floating for nearly 40 years. But I think the real strength here is the film’s charm in all its bloody delivery. Call it nostalgia, call it King loyalty, whatever it may be. Children of the Corn isn’t a great horror film, but it doesn’t need to be. It is fun, serviceable and memorable. In my small circle of horror comrades, it may not be a cult classic, but it’ll never be an Outlander to us.
RELATED: Have A Nice Day! ‘Chopping Mall’ Turns 35
