Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice Reviews

Page 1 of 11
November 7, 2017
not bad some scary parts no the greatest though
April 18, 2017
I was a really good movie, Great sequel.
November 26, 2016
adding based on Joe Bob Briggs' recommendation
October 3, 2016
OK, I admit that I'm watching it right now and have seen it many times but I have to say that children of the corn two has got to be one of the stupidest movie I've ever seen. The kids are terrible actors as well as the adults. There's a kid named Mordecai(as in to remind us of Malachi, who really was scary?), the old crabby women who get killed are very overdramatic, the one gets crushed by her house with her feet sticking out and actually says "what a world! what a world!" In a misguided and bizarre reference to the Wizard of Oz and the other one gets thrown through a window while people are playing bingo and the guy still continues playing bingo! The lead lady from Pinocchio's revenge plays a starring role in this film and she still sucks. Also, the preacher always talks about fornication and the local cops and Dr. have some sort of evil corn mold scheme going which makes no sense. Like they are trying to sell tainted corn with a mold that causes hallucinations but when they have to kill people to cover it up they do it gleefully instead of regretfully like you would think they would after so much death already. And the sad thing is, this could've been a decent movie based on the plot, well not THIS plot but The whole "life after Gatlin thing".
½ June 14, 2016
If there's anything you can rely on in the COTC movies, it's horrible child actors, and Ryan Bollman wins this one with his screaming of lines, his wiggling of his eyebrows and his horrendous scene chewing. Sure, Terrence Knox and Paul Scherrer are terrible too, but Bollman wins, hands down.
October 18, 2014
Well, I watched this kind of with nostalgia goggles. This was a movie I liked a lot as a kid and was one of the earlier introductions to horror movies for me (1992/93 was a big time for me to learn about all horror movies). So this movie kind of has a special place in my heart, even if it's pretty bad and part of a series that probably never produced a single good movie.

Though it's not THAT bad. This was typical 90s direct-to-video horror (wait... this wasn't direct-to-video?). There were a lot of bad horror movies that came out during this time period and this was not the worst one. It's very silly and has some corny deaths, but there is some entertainment to be had from the melodrama, terrible CGI, bad acting, and original death scenes. Death by nosebleed? Houses falling on old ladies? An old woman being hit by a truck and sent flying through a window? Good stuff!

It's almost (ALMOST) close to be a so-bad-it's-good movie. There was just that little something extra that was missing from this movie to make it worthwhile. As it stands, it's kind of a skippable, pointless sequel. There's just no audience to recommend it to (maybe fans of early 90s horror? [if those exist]).
October 17, 2014
Gorier and more in depth than the first. The Final Sacrifice relies on its kill scenes rather than the desolate creepiness that the first one thrived on. An average horror movie at best, but an original one.
½ September 28, 2014
The original "Children of the Corn" tied its story up pretty well by the end of the film, but because someone sensed that there may be a profit hidden out there in those cornfields, we now get a very belated sequel subtitled "The Final Sacrifice". Much like the so-called "Final Chapter" of "Friday the 13th", that is pretty laughable considering how many more direct-to-video sequels would follow this, but it probably sounded cool on paper.

Perhaps the one nice thing I can honestly say about this is that it does throw in a whole slew of mostly ridiculous plot devices in an attempt to further the story and mask the fact that this was made strictly for the sole purpose of making a quick buck. It throws in Native American folklore, a possible ecoterrorist idea about unleashing deadly tainted maize onto the population and even some ideas that Greenpeace might get behind about these kids striking back against their parents for ruining the Earth.

Since a lot (OK, most) of those ideas are never really fleshed out or explored, it falls reliably back on the "religious fervor" aspect of the first film, with the kids following an unlikely, unholy deity known as He Who Walks Behind the Rows. It's as half-baked as any of the other ideas presented here, but at least it's one that we're familiar with. The film is poorly made, with some of the most unconvincing child actors I've ever seen.

The special effects are quite dreadful, and the pacing is sluggish. "Children of the Corn 2" is so full of unrealized plot threads, it's one of the most incoherent films in recent memory.
Super Reviewer
½ September 15, 2014
"What is all this shit about the corn?" Uninspired schlock, Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice is a convoluted sequel that only serves to muddle up the series. After the events of the last film the surviving children of Gatlin are taken to the next town over and placed in foster care, but the call of the corn raises up another prophet to carry on the cleansing of the adult impurity. The story is poorly written and the characters aren't very interesting. Additionally, some reconning is done in order to make this plot work (to the extent that it does), but in the end it just creates a bunch of inconsistences and over explains what's best left ambiguous. Poorly made and horribly executed, Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice is a desperate attempt to turn a one-off B-horror film into a series.
August 8, 2014
I'm sorry but it has to be said, this is better than the original. Don't get me wrong the original is a classic and great but man this one exceeds in everything. More plot, more violence, more blood and gore its just more amped up. It's highly entertaining and never boring.
May 15, 2014
Sequel made several years later but picks up where the first one ended. Here, the children's behaviour is linked to a mold grown on some corn from the previous years' harvest but no explanation for 'He Who Walks Between the Rows'. Successfully takes Stephen King's ideas down to uninspired levels.
September 23, 2013
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.
July 29, 2013
Boring and pointless, it doesn't add on much to the first film nor does it deliver on any chills. More violence towards children, cheap gore, and a lackluster story. I suppose it could have been much worst, but it's not great either.
½ June 4, 2013
Once again a horror movie attempt a sequel where there is absolutely no possible way for it to work, due to lack of material, fresh ideas, or purpose. It also doesn't help that the first movie was absolutely dreadful.
½ April 30, 2013
This is no better or worse than the original. Of course that is faint praise because the original was rubbish. It is just remarkable that 8 years after the first film they even bothered making a sequel.
April 20, 2013
All of the actions in this film are inexplicable and the horror is worthless.
April 11, 2013
Went nowhere...did nothing. It's amazing how horror movies have the biggest ratio of thinking something will be scary or effective and having it turn out to be crap. That's part of the fun and charm of the genre but as a kid I would have liked nothing more than to be scared to death and movies that looked like they could freak me out but ultimately didn't.
April 5, 2013
Continuing from where its 1984 predecessor left off, this poorly acted (especially from the youngsters) and melodramatic horror is a guilty pleasure. (What's not to love about a 'Wizard of Oz' (1939) homage?) Effective scares and a well done climax should please fans.
March 15, 2013
A similar yet slightly weaker experience... Some elements of this film I enjoyed; others not so much! The gore was upped, but the story just presented nothing really knew and more of the same! Although the wheelchair scene and the house crushing scene warrant enough reason to watch this film, I think theres enough fun to be had here on it's own merit... Far from a bad movie!
½ December 14, 2012
When you rip off the Wizard of Oz in one of the death scenes, you know you don't have a good horror movie.
Page 1 of 11