ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 26 January 2010)

Watching this movie makes it all the more obvious that the people who were involved with the previous movie simply were not capable enough of making a decent genre movie. As an horror movie this movie is actually quite a good and effective one.

The movie works out way better than "Children of the Corn", from 1984. It's not only due to the better written story that the movie works out but also because all of the elements in it do. The children are far more convincing and kind of scary this time, because they actually get to do some very evil stuff this time. There are quite a few killings in this movie, of which some are quite graphic to watch as well.

I can even say that this movie is more Stephen King like, even though Stephen King was not involved with this movie or its story at all, unlike the first movie, which got based on a novel by him. This movie its story, characters, horror and even humor reminded much more of King's style than the first movie really.

The movie also does a far better job at explaining stuff. In the first movie basically nothing what happened got explained. In this movie we get to learn a bit more about the past and why things happened the way they did in the small town of Gatlin.

I also like how the actual corn in this movie does play a prominent role. The corn in these movies should always be an evil and perhaps even scary thing, you don't want to go into, during night or daytime. The corn is actually a part of the movie its horror.

I also liked the score by Daniel Licht, which was simply a great one for an horror movie. He's a composer that has never really broken through yet, though he's getting some fame and attention now for his work on the hit-series "Dexter".

Really much better than the first movie.

7/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top