Simply A Masterpiece

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Blistering performances.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

"Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" follows a reporter and his estranged son from New York who are traveling through Nebraska in the aftermath of the first film's events; naturally, he wants a story. The price? Perhaps his life.The original "Children of the Corn" installment is not what I'd call high art exactly, but it is a fairly well-put-together horror film from a rather disreputable company (New World). This film picks up immediately where the first leaves off, shifting to new characters. Cue mysterious children, a "normal" girl-next-door love interest for the teenaged boy, and a few outrageous and violent death scenes (including one grand guignol scene in a church ceremony). "Children of the Corn II" is at its core a fairly unoriginal film, but worse, it's actually quite dull and aimless. The script takes a hard right turn in the final act with a rather absurd ecological explanation for the events taking place, which itself is wrapped up in commentary on indigenous peoples and European settlers. The problem is that none of these things really seem to cohere as the film clunks toward its finale. Terence Knox seems bored, as does most of the cast here, and there is a fair amount of soap-opera acting throughout. It's not entirely bad, though—I do think genre fans will find some amusement here with the death scenes and early-nineties stylistics. As a time capsule and a kitschy slasher oddity, it's amusing; as a sequel, it's unexciting, and dare I say anticlimactic. Oddly enough, I may prefer the successive sequels that followed it. 4/10.

The movie begins in Gatlin where it's revealed to police and the media that adults in the town are all dead at the hands of children. This film was made eight years after the first, but we are led to believe it takes place mere days after Linda Hamilton survived the vicious attack. So with all the parents dead, there are a lot of kids without anyone to look after them. To help out the kids that didn't participate in the murders, the neighbouring town of Hemingford offers to foster some of them. We are then introduced to a tabloid reporter John Garrett and his son Danny who do not get along. John is travelling to Hemingford to get a scoop on the story of the murders. They end up staying at a bed and breakfast run by who has taken in a child of Gatlin, Micah. Micah eventually becomes the leader of the resurrected corn cult and he along with a group of kids under the influence of "he who walks behind the rows" go onto kill adults. The gore in this sequel is piled on compared to the first. We gets slashed throats, a man who bleeds out of his nose and ears until he dies. Some pretty decent special effects for a lower budgeted horror movie. The acting is pretty good as well. Terence Knox and Paul Scherrer as father and son are good, a young Christie Clark of Days of Our Lives fame plays the heroine Lacey perfectly. And although Ryan Bollman (Micah) is no Isaac from the first film, he does a nice job as the evil cult leader. Can Micah be stopped or will he enlist Danny into his cult of adult hating young people?These Children of the Corn movies get a bad rap; but as a fan of the first one, I thought Children of the Corn II was a pretty good entry to the franchise. The plot is obviously not believable and has many holes in it, but for these kind of films I try to take reality out of the equation. The one problem I have with it is that at the end of the first one, the main characters destroyed the demon in the corn and at the start of this one, there's no explanation as to how it came to be again. We also get an interesting opinion from a few characters in this that suggest the kids are killers because the watch "too many horror movies". I thought that was a nice little touch. Overall a decent sequel. 6/10

For a sequel to "Children of the Corn" i wasn't expecting much of a movie. If you are one of the few who enjoyed "Children of the Corn" and like classic gory movies that are strange you will like this movie. i remember watching it as a kid than looking for it. when i found it i remembered why i loved it. the story has only changed some, children killing adults but it takes place after no. 1. when the neighboring town Hemmingford finds the children and the adults. then the children are moved out and live in new home, but they still meet to discuss their cult and worship, Micah one of the children is possessed by "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" and starts to kill the adults again. but a reporter and his son move into the town to investigate, the father goes to great lengths to find out exactly what happens, the son falls in love and joins the cult, after the cult kills some adults the reporter and a friend he met find poisoned corn and it explains why the children were acting the way they were, the children take the sons lover and a hotel manager to sacrifice but the reporter saves them, and kills Micah, ending the children's reign of terror. what i liked the most about it was how it was nothing like the original. it was cleaver and had some great kills (the guy in the church) and was very interesting to watch to an ultimately satisfying ending to me. thats why Children of the Corn II the Final Sacrifice gets an 8/10

Stephen King's "Children of the Corn" story is relatively short so most of what is in the movies has nothing to do with his story. This is the last of the movies I saw, but many more sequels would for some reason follow. The first movie did have some elements that were found in the book, this one only a few concepts remain as it does a lot of things differently this time around. For one, you do not get the creepy abandoned looking town you found in the first movie, which is a shame as it is what made that film for me. You also do not have really much of anything as far as development goes as this film is for the most part very forgettable. The story centers around what are supposedly survivors from the town in the last movie and for some reason it seems the corn is infecting them in ways that once again make them into bad children, or bad teenagers for the most part. Yes, I would have to say all these movies would be more aptly titled teenagers of the corn rather than children, though I can guess they do it so they do not traumatize a really young kid.