Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice

Dimension Films | Release Date: January 29, 1993

4.5	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 11 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

inaneswineNov 14, 2017

I loved the first film. It's a cult classic. But like me, if anyone else loved the original film, it may take you a while to realise how absolutely dreadful this pointless sequel is. It has a nonsensical plot, no characters, dreadful acting,I loved the first film. It's a cult classic. But like me, if anyone else loved the original film, it may take you a while to realise how absolutely dreadful this pointless sequel is. It has a nonsensical plot, no characters, dreadful acting, dreadful music, dreadful script, no scary moments. It is an abomination.

The film involves the town of Gatlin being discovered, the children rescued and fostered by the adults of neighbouring town Hemingford. Then somehow, He Who Walks Behind The Rows possesses Micah - this sequel's terminally constipated-looking excuse for Isaac - and the children begin their cult again.

COTC II is just plain offensive. The plot shares less in common with Stephen King than it does with a particularly violent episode of Home and Away. Lead actor Terence Knox doesn't seem to be concentrating on his acting skills, and seems to be directing every ounce of his attention to not moving a single facial muscle in his skull. Paul Scherrer on the other hand simply looks like he's on a special day out.

Where the first film brilliantly explores the isolation of the victims from the rest of the world, its first sequel offers nothing more than a clueless slasher movie, with the soap opera moments hastily strung together by too-stupid-to-be-funny death sequences involving ridiculous characters that deserve everything they get.

One can easily understand why Stephen King does everything in his power nowadays to disassociate himself with the Children of the Corn franchise. If this first offering is anything to go by, God only knows the stream of grime that followed in the other five sequels.

You can actually simulate watching this film at no expense by sitting in front of a blank TV screen and repeatedly poking a finger in each eye for an hour and a half.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoDec 27, 2020

A sequel to a good movie can be bad... a sequel to a movie that tend not to be that good are more likely to be a disaster. And that is what we have here. This film begins where the predecessor ended: the Gatlin massacre is discovered andA sequel to a good movie can be bad... a sequel to a movie that tend not to be that good are more likely to be a disaster. And that is what we have here. This film begins where the predecessor ended: the Gatlin massacre is discovered and takes on public outlines, with authorities investigating.

Honestly, I don't feel like summarizing the script because it's really poor, it just looks like a skeleton, on top of the original film, which serves as the basis for bad horror scenes, quite boring and apparently more designed for TV than for the big screen. Everything is happening in another city, where the surviving children of Gatlin are welcomed and will begin to replicate the events of their hometown, rebuilding their diabolic sect and restarting the mass murders. And as in the first film, the solution will come from those who oppose the cult, and from the son of a journalist who is investigating Gatlin, and who does not have the best relationship with his own father (cliché). The film has a bad script, poorly written and with lots of loose ends, like that idea of toxic mold in corn, which hangs and loosens in the middle of the plot, without resulting in anything or having a conclusive outcome.

The cast is bad and has some characters strange to the scope of the film and who seem to have been fitted into the plot by hammering. It is the case of the American Indian, full of environmental concerns, that will help the heroes by dying miserably in a heroic sacrifice. The children's cast is uninteresting, but adults are no better, and the film makes up for the dramatic bad work with good looks for the generous cleavage of Christie Clark, which is still quite hot at this time. Paul Scherrer is not convincing and just does what he has to do and Ryan Bollman looks like a spoiled teenager with serious assertion problems and not a credible lethal threat.

Compared to the first film, the technical aspects undergo an evolution that, even so, does not compensate for the dramatic poverty and the decadent script, nor make this film worthy of our attention. The cinematography looks very televised, but it takes advantage of the bloodiest scenes in the film... which is much more bloody and visually shocking than the original. There is a lot of blood, some deaths are really violent, and we have several scenes of decaying corpses, which the improved special effects were able to make quite realistic. However, even here there are flaws and the final scenes, where we see the diabolical monster, are worthy of our laughter or, at the very least, an ironic smile.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

HellHoleHorrorFeb 16, 2022

Looked pretty messy in places. The picture looked average at best. I didn't like the 4:3 frame. It was bad sound. It lacked bass. It was all top-heavy and sounded bad because of this. The old lady is the worst actress ever! The acting isLooked pretty messy in places. The picture looked average at best. I didn't like the 4:3 frame. It was bad sound. It lacked bass. It was all top-heavy and sounded bad because of this. The old lady is the worst actress ever! The acting is substandard at best. There really was no story to speak of. It didn't offer anything new except the children taking another town and some pointless and mis-fitting native-American explanation. Bad film in every sense. It didn't even have any charm to make it fun.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews