Connect with us

Editorials

He Who Walks Behind the Rows: The Campy Scares of ‘Children of the Corn’ [The Silver Lining]

Published

on

he who walks behind the rows

In this edition of The Silver Lining, we’ll be covering Fritz Kiersch’s Stephen King adaptation that unleashed “He Who Walks Behind the Rows,” Children of the Corn!

Having grown up in an extremely protestant environment, I’ve always found the phenomena of child preachers and religious indoctrination to be a particularly terrifying subject. It’s likely that Stephen King thinks the same, as there’s no shortage of faith-based terror in the author’s half century of writing. From fire and brimstone fanaticism to bible-thumping antagonists, it’s clear that the writer has a knack for stories about folks who use faith as an excuse to commit atrocities.

One of the most notable of these religious tales is his infamous Children of the Corn. Part of the Night Shift collection, this 1977 short story describes a couple that comes across a small Nebraska town that has been taken over by a horrific cult of pious children led by a maniacal preteen. Trapped in the middle of nowhere, the couple is forced to fight against the murderous youngsters lest they be sacrificed to “He Who Walks Behind the Rows”.

With the rising “King Fever” of the 80s, it makes sense that the screen rights to Children of the Corn were eventually purchased by Hal Roach Studios, with first-time director Fritz Kiersch set to direct the picture. King himself actually turned in a draft of the script, but it was ultimately rejected by the higher-ups and George Goldsmith was hired to replace him. While the writer ultimately delivered a relatively faithful adaptation of the story (minus a few Hollywood embellishments and a more up-beat ending), he has gone on to claim that his adaptation is secretly a metaphor for the Iranian revolution.

With the script in place, a pre-Terminator Linda Hamilton was cast as our leading lady alongside Peter Horton, with the 23-year-old John Franklin famously earning the role of the villainous Isaac by threatening a casting assistant with a prop knife. Hot off the heels of other successful Stephen King adaptations like Carrie, Christine and even The Dead Zone, it makes sense that fans were excited for another cinematic scare-fest from the Master of Horror.


SO WHAT WENT WRONG?

he who walks behind the rows children of the corn

While Children of the Corn ultimately made an impressive $14.6 million off a production budget of less than a million (which I think justifies the fact that it’s currently the Stephen King property with the largest amount of sequels and reboots), the movie currently sits at a woeful 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. As it stands, most contemporary critics agree that the flick’s cheesy stylings end up sabotaging a genuinely interesting premise.

After all, a cult of homicidal children is an inherently better idea for literature, with the scary child trope being a lot less effective when we can see the ridiculousness of their religious revolution. Many of the film’s “action” scenes border on comical, as it takes more than the element of surprise to convince me that the children of a small town could easily overpower their elders without suffering any considerable losses along the way. This kind of imagery may be suitably creepy in the written word, but it just doesn’t translate well to the screen.

While Linda Hamilton and John Franklin are definitely standouts, even the biggest fan of the film has to admit that the performances are all over the place. It’s not exactly fair to expect Oscar-worthy performances from an ensemble of B-movie child actors, but the inexperienced thespians certainly take away from the story’s proposed horror (especially that corny narration).

There’s also the issue of much of the story feeling a lot like a Sunday stroll through a rural Nebraska town. While the lonely midwestern atmosphere can be creepy, the film suffers from severe pacing issues that keep it from being consistently interesting. There’s quite a bit of cheap padding here, with the filmmakers having been forced to cut and simplify several important scenes in order to finish the production. This is reportedly due to the picture’s original $1.3 million budget being unexpectedly reduced when Stephen King demanded a larger fee after his script was rejected.

Overall, Children of the Corn is a bit too cheap to be taken seriously, with bizarre tonal shifts and soundtrack choices combined with questionable effects resulting in a less-than-satisfying adaptation.


THE SILVER LINING

CHILDREN OF THE CORN

I only recently found out about the film’s negative reputation, having always just assumed that it was a horror staple due to its considerable cultural impact and the seemingly never-ending franchise that it spawned. In hindsight, Children of the Corn is definitely no masterpiece, but I’d argue that its low-budget thrills make it worth revisiting as a campy classic.

The experience is certainly far more “spooky” than “scary”, with the flick often feeling more like a cheesy 50s picture than something from the mid-80s, but these trashy elements grow on you after a while. The film is also a rare example of daylight horror that doesn’t rely on extreme gore in order to be creepy, preferring to deal in subtle scares and plenty of atmosphere rather than diving into what could easily have turned into a child-centric slasher flick.

The mythology behind the cult is also just as interesting here as it was in the short story, with the constant unseen presence of “He Who Walks Behind the Rows” tying the whole experience together. The poignant commentary on how even innocent children can be pressured into violence if faith leads them to think that they’re doing the right thing is terrifying enough, but the added element of a Lovecraftian entity driving these kids to madness serves as horrific icing on an already-disturbing cake.

Of course, there’s no discussing this movie without bringing up John Franklin’s iconic take on Isaac. While I admit that the actor is hamming it up in the role, this is oddly appropriate when you consider the character’s real-world inspirations. You definitely get the sense that this child is simply emulating the chaotic energy of the fire-and-brimstone preachers that he’s seen before, ultimately becoming an unwitting vessel for the true evil of the story. That’s why I honestly think that Isaac stands out as one of the most memorable Stephen King antagonists out there.

It may be an excessively literal adaptation with a hefty amount of low-budget cheese, but Children of the Corn is still an entertaining b-picture. This particular Stephen King story works better on the page, but the film boasts enough retro charm to make it worth slogging through a couple of by-the-numbers scares to get to the good bits.


Watching a bad movie doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad experience. Even the worst films can boast a good idea or two, and that’s why we’re trying to look on the bright side with The Silver Lining, where we shine a light on the best parts of traditionally maligned horror flicks.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading