The Children of the Corn (1984)

Believe it or not, I hadn't seen The Children of the Corn until this week. Weird, right? I feel like it's just one of those movies where you sort of wind up watching it (or one of its numerous sequels) on SyFy (or SciFi more likely, since I feel like they played it more frequently before they changed the name in 2009) when nothing else is on. But somehow I missed that mind-vacuum in favour of sleep or homework or taped episodes of The X-Files.

I decided to finally sit down and watch it at the urging of a friend, and I have to say, it's great. And by "great," I mean horrible. And by "horrible," I mean great. It's just one of those movies. While I doubt it's actually contributed too much to the horror genre, I still feel like it has a classic-y vibe (mostly because Stephen King wrote the book it's based on and because it perpetually reminds me of The Shining for no apparent reason).

Cast Highlights:

• Peter Horton (whom I could of sworn was on an episode of Murder, She Wrote, but apparently was not) as Burt
• Linda Hamilton (who was in an episode of Murder, She Wrote) AKA Sarah Motherfucking Connor  as Vicky
• Two cute kids as two cute "nonbeliever" children
• A bunch of creepy-ass children as creepy-ass children
• Some creepy man-child as Isaac
• Courtney Gains as Malachai AKA the most horrifying ginger you've ever seen in your life AKA The Fist.
• Some dog as the ever-adorable Sarge

Basic Summary:

This movie takes place in a very dated "present," when a small, hyper-religious town in Nebraska is overthrown by all but two child-residents, who all follow Isaac (the man-child) and believe in "He Who Walks behind the Corn" (often presumed to be either Satan or a satanic/demonic force, but this is never really explained within the context of the film; I haven't read the book). Somehow the children are able to grow and cook food and have lots of life skills without any adults teaching them how. After a while, a couple (Burt and Vicky) are traveling through town on their way to Burt's new residency or doctor job or something (he's supposed to be a doctor, but only when it's convenient or he's being pretentious) and they get pulled into all the silly nonsense in this town run by children. The children decide to kill the "outlanders" (aka Burt and Vicky), who have to save all of the kids from the evil (but really only end up saving two).

Notes:

For being an adaptation of a short story, this is pretty damn good. It does fine as a stand alone piece, save the seemingly erroneous beginning (which clues us in on the ending and is super-duper awkward). Usually written-media-to-film don't work out so well, but Stephen King seems to have some pretty translatable books and stories, eh? See: Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, Creep Show, Cujo, The Dead Zone, Stand by Me, Pet Sematary, It, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Storm of the Century, Hearts in Atlantis, and Secret Window, just to name a few. Something about his books just translates well to film. Or maybe it's just that he's written so damn much that some of them have to be decent. Honestly, I haven't read any Stephen King, so maybe that is a topic better explored by someone who has...

Some of the shots in this movie are kind of brilliant. But only kind of. The overall film quality is about average; nothing to write home about. But there are some really stand-out shots in there. It's like handing a five-year-old a camera and telling her to take pictures. Of course some of them are going to turn out okay. I should really give the director a bit more credit, because there's at least a handful of these, but they have this amateurish, clumsy feeling to them. They don't feel clean or polished, the composition just really winds up working. See:

 

The children acting in this movie aren't all that great but the adults can pull their own weight (I RHYMED!). The kid playing Isaac is actually kind of awesome. Only insomuch as he's ridiculous. And his voice is really crazy. 

In terms of the Bechdel Test, I'm not quite sure if this passes. You see, the Bechdel Test stipulates that there be two women in the movie, and that they have a conversation, and that that conversation not be about a man. Well this movie only has about two prominent women. One is killed in the beginning of the film. There are a lot of girls, though—children, that is. And Vicky and little Sarah (the adorable one) have conversations that aren't all about men (not being killed is kind of an important topic for Vicky). So I'm not exactly sure if this passes, but I'm going to go with an infirm "yes." That being said, Vicky is treated as a victim throughout most of the movie.

Other Highlights:

After watching this, I decided that Nebraska's bumper sticker should read, "Nebraska: Where Children Reign Supreme!" I'm starting a petition.

I also realized was that Stephen King really likes his little girl characters to a) be psychic in some capacity, b) draw things psychically, and c) listen to record players. I guess it was more normal for a young girl to listen to a record player in the mid-1980s than it was in his 2002 miniseries Rose Red. (If you haven't seen Rose Red, I'll write a review at some point. I'm not going to say "you should," because it's kind of hard to find).

We all know it wouldn't be an 80s horror movie without bad digital effects!!! This looks like it'd be more at home in a Lysol commercial than a movie about evil chillens.

But my favourite ridiculous part of this was when Burt, a medical student-doctor-thing, is completely unphased by the fact that someone he struck with his car "was already dead when he stumbled out into the road." I know nothing about medicine, but I can deduce that stumbling anywhere when you're already dead is at least a little bit IMPOSSIBLE! But Burt just keeps plugging along, trying to solve problems as though nothing strange or supernatural is going on in the town except that the roads all lead to the same place and everyone's hyper-religious. And the children. But that's totally normal, right, Burt?

Here's what's probably my favourite clip, featuring: Burt hearing voices ("remembering"),  dramatically kicking a door in, and accosting a small child; Isaac and Malachai fighting; Vicky with her Crown of Corns; and parts of cool shots shown above.  

Pay special attention to Isaac (the short, non-ginger one)'s voice, because I swear it sounds eerily similar to that of Nevel from iCarly (yes, I watch that show, but I'll never watch it the same again):

 

And probably the most innocuously disturbing part was when Burt first ran into Sarah, he said, in what I swear was the creepiest way possible (or maybe I just imagined it that way), "Are you here alone, Sarah." A line like that is typical horror fodder for some kind of violence, be it sexual or physical. And then a few scenes later, he accosts her (seen above) and now I'm just convinced he's a child molester.

Lastly, I need to warn all of the animal lovers that the soulless ginger of terror kills the only dog in the movie. It's senseless and horrible and thank god it's an off-screen death (unlike Invasion of the Blood Farmers, review coming eventually). RIP puppy! 

 

 

 

 

Rating:

Three hearts for not actually being that awesome, but being enjoyable enough. Would I watch it again? Maybe. Was it a classic? Kinda-sorta-not-really. Did it remind me of The Shining randomly and make me ache to watch it? Yes. Would anything ever make me ache to watch this? Probably not.

You should watch this movie if you like bad 80s horror, Stephen King, books by Stephen King, movies with creepy kids, or endings you can deduce faster than the characters. Additionally, I am going to suggest that all conservative Christians give this movie a watch, not because they'll like it, but because of some of Bert's sentiments, including, "any religion without love and compassion is false." Right? Still pertinent!

You shouldn't watch this movie if you don't like animals dying, you don't like scary movies (this isn't really scary at all, I only jumped once and that was more startled than scared, but most people who "don't like scary movies" have a low threshold for fright while most people who do enjoy horror are more tolerant), children frighten you to begin with, you have an aversion to the state of Nebraska, corn frightens you, you need visually stunning cinema and/or graphics, or you hate Stephen King (for whatever probably invalid reason).

TLDR:

Stephen King. Horrifying ginger. Children rule Nebraska. Sarah Connor not being hunted by a blood-thirsty, body-building abortionist from the future. Dead dog. Religion ruins everything. May or may not pass Bechdel Test. Bad graphics. Hit-or-miss cinematography. Three hearts.

Read more »

The Phantom (1996)

I watched The Phantom becuase it’s on Netflix Instant and I had been searching for it for ages. I saw it when it came out on VHS in 1996 or ‘97 (I don’t remember when, but it was released in ‘96 and I’m assuming it was a quick-to-video kind of thing because it made exactly negative money). My only drive to watch this movie (I wouldn’t call it a “film”) was a strikingly traumatic childhood memory of a certain scene, which will be detailed below.

I need to preface this review by saying that I really did search high and low for this film for several years due to the traumatic scene detailed below. I have watched the first half hour of every 1990s non-Batman superhero movie (even braving Alec Baldwin’s performance in The Shadow) trying to figure out if it was this one because for whatever reason, I need to masochistically re-live all of the horrifying moments of my childhood.

Cast Highlights

• James Remar AKA Harry Morgan AKA Dexter's Dad from Showtime's Dexter (albeit not in his paternal, non-psychopathic character) as the antagonist's disappointingly in- competent minion (because everyone needs a minion).
• Billy Zane AKA Rose's douchey fiance in Titanic (which would explain why I absolutely loathed him for no apparent reason until I figured out that's where I recognized him from) as Kit Walker AKA The Phantom AKA that guy in purple.
• Kristy Swanson AKA the original Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) as the "strong" love interest (who ultimately needs The Phantom's help at every turn) AKA some chick.
• Catherine Zeta-Jones as a total BAMF babe (her character has a name, but just barely, so she is now dubbed "Catherine Zeta-Jones" OR "CZJ" OR "babe" for the rest of the review).
• Some Dude who should have been Kevin Klein AKA Treat Williams as the antagonist Xander Drax (X-A-N-D-E-R  D-R-A-X. Begins and ends with the letter "X").
• And the real stars: whatever animals played the wolf and the horse. Because they stole the show completely.

Now the part you've all been waiting for, the scene of HORROR:

About a half hour into the film, some dude looks into a microscope and when he tries to focus it, RAZORBLADES COME OUT OF THE EYE HOLES AND BLIND HIM! How could you not be traumatized by that!? Like, while this scene was being set up, I cringed and crawled away from the computer screen. I haven't done that since I watched The Crazies and that was (arguably) actually scary.

How exactly can a film feature a man being blinded WITH RAZOR BLADES and still be rated PG? I really will not understand, especially since "shit" is uttered twice within the first ten minutes and Billy Zane's abs probably qualify as pornography (not to mention the fact that, according to the United Nations, purple spandex suits are a crime against humanity).

Basic Summary:

It's 1930-something. Antagonist tries to accumulate 3 skulls that will magically harness the power of the sun and blow shit up when combined, much to the chagrin of pretty much everyone who's not evil/corrupt, especially The Phantom and Some Chick and her uncle (who is so inconsequential that he doesn't even get a cast write-up). Catherine Zeta-Jones flies planes, kicks ass, and doesn't mind threats of sexual violence as long as the people making them are on her side. Dexter's Dad has a tattoo or something and is basically a bumbling idiot. Also pirates roving the seven seas (but mostly two seas) (where they somehow rule dynasticly) (and kill people, thus initiating the plot). But mostly skulls. Skulls fuckin' e'rr'where. And animals who communicate without speaking.

Notes:

The movie is shot in a really tight letterbox format, which could be cool, but it's kind of awful. Almost ever shot is really crowded or unbalanced. They even used a wide-angle lens (in at least some shots) to cram EVEN MORE into each scene (see screencap below and notice how vertical lines are a little bowed out). That is not how you use letterbox. You use letterbox to communicate something. You use letterbox in Lawrence of Arabia or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly to communicate a vast, empty landscape and immeasurable solitude. You do not use it because you think it looks cool.

There were a lot of problems with representations of colonialism, but since it takes place in the 1930s, that's kind of to be expected. No one treated colonialism right in the 1930s because it was still happening. But still, not good. The three explicit threats of sexual violence go ahead and undermine the the miraculous fact that this film somehow passed the Bechdel Test. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Some Chick have a conversation about fashion instead of men (until the Phantom shows up and it all becomes catty jealousy)! IT COUNTS!

But on the bright side, the art deco furniture and sculpture was AMAZING! I had a dec-arts-gasm with all that furniture!

The dialogue in this movie made me very uncomfortable. I don't know if it was because I just didn't want to admit to myself that I thought Billy Zane was hot or that it was just really bad (I'm leaning toward "it's really bad," though, since I appear to have no problem calling his abdominals pornographic).

Other Highlights:

When watching this, I remembered that animals non-verbally communicating was a decidedly 1990s phenomenon. Also, animals in general. Remember that one about the panda and the bridge? Or the giant motherfucking gorilla? Or Dances with Wolves or Jurassic Park (hey, dinosaurs are people animals, too!) or really any movie made in the 1990s ever? Yeah, they were all pretty much about animals.

If you decide to watch this movie, you will also be graced with the glorious sight of Dexter's Dad blowing perfect smoke rings (sorry for the lack of screencap), as well as some pretty great fake sharks. That's pretty much all I've got.

Also, Catherine Zeta-Jones's many outfits:

Rating:

I rated this three hearts because the more I think about this movie, the more it grows on me. I'll probably definitely watch it again (if only for Billy Zane's abs and Catherine Zeta-Jones's mere presence), and while I find some of it annoying in a completely beyond-camp kind of way, it was a decent movie. But since I don't think that ratings are a particularly good way to decide whether or not you want to watch a movie (unless you 100% of the time agree with the rater), I am also including suggestions as to whether or not you'd like the movie based on its content. (See: How I Rate Movies for more info).

So basically, you should watch this movie if you are inclined toward: superhero movies, typical '90s movies, Catherine Zeta-Jones, ponies, men in spandex (and latex), skulls, depictions of colonialism, sketchy stalker ex-boyfriends who get the girl, OR if you remember this from when you were a kiddo and want to see if it really lives up to the bad rap I'm giving it. Oh, did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones?

You shouldn't watch this movie if you highly value cinematography, dialogue, plot development, or films that are overall considered to be "good" in a completely non-ironic way. You should also avoid this film if you have an aversion to people BEING BLINDED BY RAZORBLADES, the fact that Kevin Klein isn't in it, or the color purple (not the play by Alice Walker, but the actual color) (though it is very possible that if you didn't like the play, you won't like this film... but I'm not going to make any definitive statements on that one).

TLDR:

Billy Zane shirtless. Catherine Zeta-Jones being hot. Bad everything. Horrifying razorblade-to-eyeball scene. Horse and wolf. Crowded shots. Poor dialogue. Art Deco. Passes Bechdel test (barely). Three hearts.

But that being said, my only motivation to watch this was to relive my childhood horrors, which was through within the first half hour. Something compelled me to finish. It was probably my love for mediocre cinema.

Read more »