This is one of the scariest movies I have seen. If does not scary you no movie will. The first movie of Children of the corn is very scary. This is scarier. It has a great story line. It also has great acting.

"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 first Children of the Corn, based on a Stephen king short story, was a dried up, empty husk of a movie, lacking anything really tasty to get the teeth into; whilst part II is far from essential viewing, a belated and predictably dumb sequel, at least there are a few tasty niblets to be found amongst the chaff.Firstly, this one is far more gruesome, the children of Gatlin offing their victims in inventive and often bloody fashion (FX by Bob Keen), highlights including a fatal stabbing with syringes, a messy hemorrhage from the nose and ears caused by voodoo doll, and a silly but fun scene inspired by the Wizard of Oz in which an old woman is crushed by a house (her sister is even called Miss West, as in 'wicked witch of the').The film also benefits from a couple of decent 90s babes in the form of sexy bed and breakfast owner Angela (Rosalind Allen) and busty teen hottie Lacey (Christie Clark). Frustratingly, neither gal gets nekkid for the camera, although Angela does hop in the sack for a brief nudity-free romp with tabloid hack John Garrett (Terence Knox) and lovely Lacey takes a shower under a waterfall in her bikini top, much to the delight of John's son Danny (Paul Scherrer).Sadly, the lacklustre plot itself isn't all any where near as memorable as either the splatter or the eye-candy, and as the story develops, too many elements are introduced that irritatingly conflict with each other—toxic corn that induces hallucinations in children, a psycho cop, He Who Walks Behind The Rows, Indian mysticism—by the end of the film, not only did I not know what was going on, but I didn't really care. Fortunately, as the end of the film approaches, matters get so silly that it can't fail to entertain, with both babes being offered as blood sacrifices, cult leader Micah becoming possessed, and a runaway combine harvester for good measure.5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

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.