Children of the Corn

I saw this movie recently and I was unimpressed. I have seen many adaptations of Stephen King's short stories, and this film is not among the best. However, it also didn't seem as bad as many people say. It has some redeeming qualities that must be taken into account. Perhaps it contributed to becoming a film with some notoriety, even after several disastrous sequels. The film is based on a short story by King about a small rural town, where everything revolves around growing corn. One day, in 1980, inspired by the fiery preaching of a teenager recently arrived in the city called Isaac, the local children unite and massacre the adults, their parents and family members, in order to please an evil and diabolical deity they call "The One Who Walks Behind the Rows". And from there, the city dies, and so do those who get there. It was what would happen to a young couple who gets lost and finds the city by chance, but they will have the help of two children from the city, unhappy with the direction of the situation. Well, I don't know if it's really worth saying that logic isn't the film's strong point. It does not make sense for a city, however small, to suffer such a calamity and that is not front-page news, with an invasion of police, armed to the teeth, to hunt down the sect. It is best to accept the film as it is and not think too much about the story or everything will fall apart. One of the things that pleased me most is the way the film begins: through the voice of one of the children, we witnessed the horror of the massacre, with the refinement of cruelty. It is one of the most striking scenes in the film, and it introduces very well what will follow. The film is effective in the task of creating an atmosphere of tension and surrounding suspense, but it spoils it as it progresses and the film becomes more exaggerated. The ending is histrionic and uninteresting. The film has a cast that we can divide into adults and children. The overall performance is average, but there is no actor who truly shines or stands out for his good work. This is largely due to the poor direction of Fritz Kiersch and the fact that the characters are basic, without any development. Most children did not have much to do. John Franklin is greasy and slippery, but never truly threatening, Courtney Gains is more effective at this task; Robby Kiger and Anne Marie McEvoy are sweet, pleasant and easy to like; Jonas Marlowe and Julie Maddalena do nothing more than is essential. When it comes to adults, Linda Hamilton steals the spotlight whenever she appears and the reason is clear: she is beautiful and convincing in the role of the lady in danger, but she does nothing but be in danger, appear scared and run away. R. G. Armstrong did a good job on a character that comes up briefly, and it gives us perhaps the closest thing to a well-done dramatic interpretation. Peter Horton has not convinced me and has scenes that are absolutely inconceivable. Technically it is a rather poor film, and it should certainly not be the fault of the time it was made. There were already better features and special effects than those used here. Really, the film has horrible special effects, the best and most creative being that pile of earth that runs from side to side and, supposedly, is the evil creature that lives in the corn and the children deified. There is little blood in the film (in certain scenes there should be more to make it more credible) and the deaths are not graphic, but they shock more by what is implied than by what is actually seen.

I enjoy most classic horror movies, but this one is one of the worst that I've seen. I almost fell asleep several times while watching Children of the Corn. The only thing "scary" about this film is the awful effects they added. The children are just annoying and nothing more. I didn't care who died because none of the characters had much of a personality. I expected more out of such a popular movie.

1984 was an amazing year for movies, being the nerd that I am I pay attention to my analytics and 1984 is the 3rd greatest movie year at time of writing. Being a huge horror fan the fact I haven't watched the Children Of The Corn movies is remarkable especially when you take into consideration how much I love Kings work and how I've seen every other adaptation of his books. Off the top of my head I've seen the remake (2009) and one of the later sequels and have to say (And I never say this) the remake is better. Being that this is the original cult classic I expected so much more but instead found a disjointed lifeless effort that failed to impress. I'm not saying it's bad, but its mediocre at best. If the cult classic original is of this quality I'm concerned what the long list of straight to vhs/dvd sequels are going to be like. Time will tell! One of the weaker Stephen King adaptations. The Good: Still has the Stephen King vibe Concept is strong enough The Bad: Far too short Wastes a good story Things I Learnt From This Movie: Linda Hamilton cannot sing For a religious man Stephen King really craps on religion The only thing more obnoxious than a religious person is a religious child Kids are evil, been saying it for years

In a remote ghost town, children kill any adult who enters the village; their motive, false religion. One day a couple drive into the town, soon learning something is wrong, and it is up to them to stop the senseless sacrifices before they are slaughtered. Aided by two innocent children, they are up against the manic Malachai and some unseen horror known only as He Who Walks Behind The Rows... My expectations were low for this film after seeing so many other distinctly average offerings from the "based on" Stephen King catalogue of cinema. However I was pleasantly surprised by the film, it's not often that I find myself laughing out loud at a movie, but I just couldn't help myself in this case. It starts off well enough, as a spooky little atmospheric film, the most effective scenes where the helpless couple are driving around seemingly endless dirt tracks in the corn. However, as soon as the main male lead, played by Peter Norton, is stabbed in the chest (with seemingly no effect) things just go a little over-the-top and start to get funny. They then build up to the climax where I was pleased to see bad '80s animated special effects come into play. Well, some of them weren't that bad, but they weren't exactly VOLCANO-style computer generations. Maybe I am spoilt by SFX these days, but back projection is getting a little dated. The monster really remains unseen during the film, appearing underground in a TREMORS-style way, it tears up the ground as it speeds along. The acting was also good for a change. The children weren't too annoying, and I actually found myself liking the unaffected kid in the film. Malachai I recognised from somewhere, and the IMDb soon revealed to me that I also saw him in THE 'BURBS a while back. Isaac wasn't exactly what I'd call scary though. Peter Norton was quite good as the lead, he redeemed his nondescript acting at the start of the film by a speech where he shouted that "religion not based on love is false!" Linda Hamilton, in the same year she made THE TERMINATOR, sadly has little to do but run around and scream as the heroine. Come to think of it that's about all she did in THE TERMINATOR as well. At least her character was fleshed out a little there. The film remains unsettling at times, and is enhanced by the director's decision not to show some of the deaths, instead only hint at them (saying that, there is a meaty scene where an old guy gets his hand pushed into some sort of grinder). It wasn't overly gory but this added to it for me. The climax was fairly entertaining, but really a case of "big explosions don't compensate for tying-up plot threads" again. It's not a good film by any means, and it remains clichéd, but I enjoyed it and that's what counts.

Based on the 1977 short story of the same name by Stephen King, this is a wonderfully awful horror film. I have no idea how closely it sticks to the story since I never read it or any of King's work for that matter but the script by George Goldsmith is horrendously written with more plot holes than you can shake a stick at. The only even remotely clever bits such as the depiction of the mob mentality engendered by cults are taken from either much better works or, unfortunately, real life incidents. The film takes a dash of "Village of the Damned" (1960) and a pinch of "The Wicker Man" (1973) to come up with a storyline concerning evil children who sacrifice people to ensure a good corn harvest. Now, I like corn as much as the next guy but this approach seems a little excessive to me. Isaac is basically an older version of Damien from "The Omen" (1976) crossed with Wesley Crusher and the film's score is a poor man's version of that film's. It's essentially a rehash of earlier horror classics. Unlike "The Wicker Man", however, this film actually attempts to make the relevant crop frightening in a few scenes. Amazingly, it doesn't work very well. The director Fritz Kiersch is hardly Richard Attenborough or Kenneth Branagh but he's no Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau either. Some shots are downright or at least borderline competent. The plot concerns the lovely little town of Gatlin, Nebraska which is ruled by Isaac and the other followers of He Who Walks Behind the Rows. Three years earlier, Isaac, clearly a very persuasive guy, convinced the rest of the town's children to ritually murder their parents and every other adult in the vicinity (bar one mechanic). The town has been occupied only by the cultists since then and no one has noticed in the meantime. Isaac even used his powers of persuasion to convince cartographers to take Gatlin off the maps, apparently. John Franklin's performance as Isaac could not be described as good but, by God (or should I say by He Who Walks Behind the Rows?), it is entertaining. He steals all of his scenes and makes the film far more entertaining than it would have been otherwise. My favourite line is "Question not my judgement, Malachai. I am the giver of his word." His delivery and contemptuous expression are simply hilarious. It's a great putdown. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton play the hapless interlopers / outlanders Burt Stanton and Vicky Baxter who wind up in Gatlin while on the way to Seattle. Hamilton and Horton are actually good actors who deservedly went on to bigger and better things: the "Terminator" franchise and "Beauty and the Beast" (1987) for her and "thirtysomething" for him. On the bright side, they keep the film from being even more terrible. On the less bright side, they keep the film from being even more unintentionally hilarious. The two of them have good chemistry even though their characters express little affection for each other until the end of the film. However, every time that Vicky yelled "Burt!," I mentally added "Ernie!" The only other actor who gives a genuinely decent performance is R. G. Armstrong as Diehl, the aforementioned mechanic. He has about four minutes screen time. Courtney Gains, whose career peaked the next year with his one line role in "Back to the Future", is awful as Isaac's disloyal second-in-command Malachai but he is not quite as hilariously awful as Franklin. But, hey, he at least put everything into it! Robby Kiger and Anne Marie McEvoy are terrible as the rebellious young siblings Job and Sarah. The same is true of most of the other child actors, none of whom went on to great success. Incidentally, "Back to the Future" is my favourite film of all time. This film did not threaten that status. I mentioned a few of the plot holes already but this is one of the biggest. In the early part of the film, Burt and Vicky exhibit genius level intelligence when they run over a child named Joseph who turned out to be already dead, having had his throat slit by Malachai. It just wasn't his day. They then decide that it is a good idea to bungle his corpse into the boot of their car and look for help. Right...Did it not occur to them that if they were stopped by the police and they found the body, it might look just a tad suspicious? No one with half a brain would believe that he had been killed by someone else and they were on their way to the authorities. Besides which, wrapping him in a blanket and shoving him into the boot would destroy any and all forensic evidence that may exist. He is never removed from the boot, meaning that he is left there to rot. Very conscientious! Another notable one is that the cultists kill Diehl, admittedly without Isaac's permission, for no reason whatsoever as he seems just as willing to abide by the condition that he tells no one of their existence as he was before. Furthermore, Job - who is very annoying - describes the brutal murder of his father which took place within several feet of him in a very calm fashion. One would think that this would traumatise a child but he and his sister Sarah take their parents' deaths and all the other horrific events in Gatlin in their stride. They actually giggle at the end, amused by the fact that Burt and Vicky kiss. Oh, and Sarah has the unexplained ability to predict the future through her drawings. Sure, why not? When He Who Walks Behind the Rows manifests, he is killed by a comparatively small explosion caused by a Molotov cocktail. One would also think that a demon from the fiery depths of Hell would be made of sterner stuff but apparently not. Overall, this is a great "so bad, it's good" film. It may not be down there with "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Troll 2" or "The Room" but it's still pretty far down there.

I first watched Children of the Corn when it came out on video in the eighties, when I was roughly the same age of the child stars that were in it. I loved it. Now I've gone and watched it again as an adult - and with children of my own - it's a completely different experience! It's about a small American town in Nebraska where the children kill all the adults and start sacrificing each other to a mysterious god (did I mention it was based on a Stephen King book?). I used to love seeing the children attacking the adults (and no, I wasn't a hooligan, by the way). Now, I just wanted to send every last one of them up to bed and take away their portable DVD players (works every time with my daughter). It's certainly not the best adaptation of a Stephen King book, but it's certainly not the worst either. I guess there's a good half the film spent following the young couple of accidentally stumble across the deserted town, as they wander round trying to work out what we - the viewers - already know. However, what does make it pretty freaky is the lead (evil) children themselves. In recent Hollywood films, children have often been portrayed as the bad guys for added nastiness. Although, for example, just my making a kid's eyes glow red or have them dressed in ghostly clothes, doesn't necessarily make them scary. These kids are the real deal (and continue to freak the hell out of me without any false claws of glowing eyes whatsoever). All they needed was to be ugly enough! One has an extremely bad haircut (even for the eighties) and speaks like South Park's Eric Cartman. The other is like a young, ginger Mick Jagger. Even I would have my doubts about denying these two television privileges! Children of the Corn has sort of stood up to the test of time. If nothing else it's interesting to see Linda Hamilton in a completely different role to her most known part as Terminator's cyborg-killing Sarah Conner. I found the second half of the film more engaging than the first. My advice: if you haven't seen this before and are watching it again for the nostalgia factor, know what you're getting. It's a bit cheesy in places, but still pretty good fun for a film that takes itself very seriously.

Children of the corn is a 1984 film based on the short story by Stephen King. The story is that a couple who go to Gatlin, Nebraska find themselves in a living nightmare as they are hunted by a cult of children who have been taught by their "preacher" Isaac that everybody over the age of 18 must be killed. This film starred: Peter Horton, Linda Hamilton & John Franklin In my opinion this is an entertaining film and doesn't deserve all the stick it gets, it isn't great by any means however it's a good film too watch when your bored also a good film to watch with your friends on a night in. I do recommend this film if you have read the short story or if you are a Stephen King fan also to all you 80's cult fans. ***/***** Good film.

I found this movie rather intriguing, the idea of killer children is rather fun and can be terrifying, I do quite enjoy these types of movies, like (The Children & Village of the Damned). In Children of The Corn we get a travelling couple Vicky (Linda Hamilton) and Burt (Peter Horton) stumbling across a deserted town where all the adults have been murdered and the kids are responsible and they follow a weird cult leader in the cornfields where the truth is explained. The eerie silence throughout this movie is rather unnerving and very effective, I really rather quite enjoyed this movie, the atmosphere was spot on and the suspense and characters really makes this movie work, but there are a few flaws, like there aren't enough kill scenes which isn't a terrible thing and this movie does feel a bit overlong and dragged out. But the inclusion of the final battle scene was a real highlight and is what really lifts this movie up into a whole different direction. The cast were really good John Franklin as Isaac was really creepy and scary and Malachi played by Courtney Gains was really sick and twisted. Linda Hamilton is a pre fame role displays true ability in her role and a character that you can relate too and Peter Horton also does well as the unlikely hero but does make some rather stupid mistakes. All in all "Children of the Corn" is an effective and creepy movie that makes it a decent horror movie, just don't bother with the endless stream of sequels.

This is a really disappointing adaptation of an excellent and terrifying short story which appeared as part of American horror novelist Stephen King's first anthology of short stories, 1978's 'Night Shift'. King's story offers a dreadful sense of growing unease and a truly horrific ending which is completely scrapped in the movie version. The good news about the film is that Linda Hamilton stars; if she has ever delivered a bad performance I have not seen it. She has a toughness and a vulnerability at the same time, and is an extremely likable actress. I just wish she made more movies; I remember seeing her many years ago as the violated wife in the harrowing telemovie 'Rape and Marriage: The Rideout Case'. Hamilton made 'Children' shortly before playing tough heroine Sarah Connor in 'The Terminator', the role for which she is most famous. Burt (Peter Horton) and Vicky (Linda Hamilton) arrive in the small town of Gatlin, Nebraska to find that a small group of mutinous children led by the Damien Thorn-like Isaac (John Franklin) have risen up and murdered nearly all the adults in their town. At the unhinged Isaac's behest, they worship He Who Walks Behind the Rows, and they are not above sacrificing the odd grown up to this mysterious figure. The shadowy presence of He Who Walks Behind the Rows pervades King's taut tale. In the story, Burt is killed by this thing a few hours after he finds his wife crucified, her eyes plucked out and the empty sockets filled with corn husks. It is an incredibly downbeat and horrible ending to a great story, and draws most of its strength and power from the fact that we do not ever really find out what exactly He Who Walks Behind the Rows is. Is it human? This clever method of suggesting rather than showing horror is discussed by King in his wonderful and nostalgic non-fiction book 'Danse Macabre'. He recalls always being disappointed when a monster was finally unveiled in a horror film. According to King, your imagination will always summon a beast much more frightening than something that a special makeup effects man has dreamt up. Unfortunately, the horror of He Who Walks Behind the Rows is totally diffused by this film. Instead of some terrifying presence, we get an awful electrical current, the product of some pretty shoddy early eighties special visual effects work. But the worst thing about this movie is the happy ending. As I wrote, King's ending is far better and a hell of a lot scarier. It would have been extremely powerful had Burt and Vicky met a grisly fate more faithful to King's original vision. These are likable characters; we do not want to see something bad befall them. So a downbeat ending would have been that much more effective. The loss of these characters would have been depressing and unsettling. Instead, what we end up with is a forgettable ending to a forgettable film. 'The Shawshank Redemption' this most certainly is not.

Maybe if those kids in Gatlin, Nebraska had gotten a visit from Professor Harold Hill and a boys band out of it, maybe they might not have killed all their parents. This Stephen King view of the mid-west sure makes one nostalgic for The Music Man. It's one strange place that married couple Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton have come on their cross country journey. It reminded me of driving through Pennsylvania and the Amish country where you cannot get off the Pennsylvania Turnpike for ages, but on either side of the roads, nothing but woods and on the overpasses, Amish carts. Here it's nothing but corn and when Peter Horton thinks he's hit a child on the road he goes for help and there's none. The town has been taken over by the devil himself working his evil through a young child preacher played by John Franklin. All the adults have been killed and the children are his disciples. Of course some of the older ones are reaching puberty and the guy who was the high school bully Courtney Gains chafes under Franklin's leadership. He tries a palace coup d'etat, something along the lines of what old Lucifer himself did in heaven and everybody pays. Children of the Corn is a good adaption of the Stephen King novel, it will please his legion of fans and maybe convert a few others.

Well i just watched Children of the corn on DVD. Before i saw the film i had heard from my friend that the film is truly terrifying & when i saw this for £5 i thought I'd give it a go. First things first considering they inly made this with $300 Thousand in the 80's they did a very good job. The movie is a bit slow for the first half hour with the exception of the beginning. However when the action picks up you will proberbly enjoy this. One down side about Children of the Corn is that it is clichéd & the ending is very Clichéd. Also John Franklin gives a terrific performance as Anti Christ Issac. Worth watching however could do with improvement. 7/10

I enjoyed this film much more than the Stephen King short story on which it is based. The film as a stark nasty tone that benefits the story being told. The story of the children killing the parents of the small town gets off to a very nasty and chilling start pretty much from the opening credits and only really falters in the last quarter of the film, where the pace slows to almost a crawl and unfortunately the film makers have gone for a happy ending rather than the one from the original story which would have made for a much more satisfying climax. For the most part this is a really enjoyable to watch though some of the "children" in the film look anything but.

Stephen King is often cited to be the father of modern horror, and this view isn't wholly unfounded. King's stories have had a large impact upon the horror genre, and many of them are very good stories in their own right also. However, when it comes to translating King's words onto the screen; many filmmakers have proved that they are not up to the task. I haven't read the book, 'Children of the Corn', but I'm sure it's better than this movie. While the film isn't especially bad; it's hardly a tour de-force of horror cinema either, and like many Stephen King films; this one could have been a hell of a lot better. Actually, this story isn't one of King's better efforts; it follows a small town whose children murder their parents on the instructions of a mysterious preacher; a little kid calling himself Isaac. The story picks up three years after this terrible event when a young couple drive into town for some reason. They find the village completely devoid of adults and it isn't long until they discover what's happened and seek to put an end to it! This film has missed several opportunities, the most glaring of which is the subterranean manifestation that dwells beneath the soil in the cornfields. We get several glimpses of this creature, but we never get to see it properly; and because of this, the monster is about as threatening as a bunch of little kids. Oh wait. Anyway, the film draws parallels with other evil kids films such as Village of the Damned in the way it plays out, but it never really gets out of first gear. While the atmosphere of the town is foreboding and well done on the whole, the plotting isn't very exciting and there's very few moments of real tension or suspense, which ensures the film isn't as engaging as it could have been. The cornfields and the corn that inhabits said field's makes for an unlikely horror prop, and some scenes within the fields are genuinely creepy. The kids themselves are rather well done also, with both of the main ones having good screen presence. If you were to pigeonhole King's films into 'good' and 'bad', this one would firmly be in the latter side. On it's own, however, it's not all that bad, and if you're a fan of King's work, you'll no doubt find something to like here. Or you might hate it for not living up to the book, one of the two.

This movie was a real let down. It started off creepy enough with the slashing of some elderly throats and some mystical choking. I liked the part with Sarah (the young girl) in the beginning and her nightmares but then it went downhill, and then some. The movie lacked an explanation for anything that happened, and most of the events seemed to jump out of nowhere. The whole "The one who walks behind the rows" thing was an attempt to have some type of mystery and intrigue but in the end we find that it really makes no sense at all when some random monster just appears from no where, burrowing underneath the soil… yeah that makes lots of sense? The worst part about this movie it that it really made no sense at all. It never explained anything that happened, like why Job and Sarah seemed to be immune to the thrall of the cult that Isaac so easily asserts upon the other children in the town. Also, why the town so swiftly became a mysterious and "hidden" down that yielded power so easily, such as from the old man at the gas station, in only a few days. The adults die and suddenly the town's off the maps and the sky seems to yield to the children's will, it all happens too fast and with no explanation as to how Isaac and Malachai attain their god-like status. This movie seems to be quite the cult classic, and must have done very well judging by the parade of sequels that followed in its outdated footsteps. It's really too bad, perhaps if this movie had never been created all the other terrible Sequels would not have been made either. My advice is to stay away from this movie, you'll expect too much due to its fame and come away disappointed and angry, mumbling something to yourself about the structure that plots are supposed to follow in movies. I wouldn't even suggest this movie for a laughable scary flick, I would instead shy away from it totally as it fails on both fronts, I guess the problem is it takes itself far too seriously in correspondence to its laughable plot and story and ends up really sucking.

Certainly one of the better adaptations of a Stephen King tale, Children Of The Corn, for me, was a goosebump film. But all the more chilling was an unseen, Evil Force who a group of murderous children happily calls "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" (Rows, meaning rows of corn in a corn-field) The image you get of this "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" character is simply Satan with a new nick-name. And why old Lucifer has chosen to possess a billion ears of corn in Nebraska {instead of the John Deere tractor sitting alongside of it} is beyond me. Whatever the reason, the fact that he's somewhere within that cornfield gave me the chills throughout this film. More chills than watching these children go on a killing rampage throughout the small town. Anyone over the age of 17 was quickly laid to rest at the beginning of the film, and any kid about to turn 18 happily sacrificed themselves to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows". The film stars Peter Horton and Linda (Terminator 1 and 2's) Hamilton. By accident, they enter this small town and become the towns only two grown-ups. Once spotted, they are quickly labeled "Outlanders" and are pursued throughout the remainder of the film until they are finally caught, bound and prepared for sacrifice. I love this film. Its had a special place in my heart for years. There is not a boring moment in this film that would put you to sleep. There are many jolts, winces and frights. And even though the "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" fella never shows his face, you will definitely feel it's presence. Trust me. Just knowing that he's somewhere in the midst of that cornfield will be enough to creep you out. I give this gem a 9/10

Maybe not so scary, but pretty cool horror movie after the short story written by Stephen King. The children of Gatlin, under the influence of 'priest' Isaac, kill all their parents as it is the wish of the Lord who apparently lives in the corn. 3 years later a couple (Peter Horton and Linda -Terminator- Hamilton) are stranded in that same place. The kids, led by Isaac and his first man Malachai, set up a plan to sacrifice them to their God. The movie gets a great start with the children killing their parents, after that it isn't much horror but more of a suspence movie. You got to see this only for the Malachai kid. Great casting! 6/10.

Children of the Corn is a classic example of a movie that was much more frightening when I was a kid. Now I suppose it pales in comparison to the better horror flicks I've seen. It's still not a bad genre flick and I recommend seeing it. Children of the Corn has its moments. Isaac and Malachai are still creepy looking cats (both played effectively by John Franklin and Courtney Gains). The musical score with the children chanting is an eerie effect too. The café scene and the accidental hit and run are the standouts of the movie, it's pretty grisly stuff. The rest is a bit mediocre. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton are pretty good as the young couple trying to escape the murderous children. And an appearance by R.G. Armstrong is never a bad thing. The movie is a "loose" adaption of a Stephen King short story, but the sequels are just absolutely King rapes. So do not bother with those.

I saw this film sitting on my Dad's lap when I was about seven years old. (I was a horror film fanatic from a very early age on.) We used to sit up watching late night scary movies while my Mom went to her ceramics classes. Dad and I loved this movie. There is no sex or nudity in this film. Even though the images are pretty graphic, if your older children are mature enough to handle a little fright, this should be okay for them. Besides, since the children are the "bad guys", your kids should be pretty happy!! My favorite actors in the film are the two star children (Joby and Sarah). They really make the film eerie with their innocence and sadness over losing their families. Malachi would be the scariest character. Even the way the other children in the movie gasp when they hear his name makes me shudder. I would not want to face him either!! Another aspect that makes this film so scary is the music. The director adds clips at just the right moments but doesn't forget to leave ample silence. There is nothing greater to add to the suspense than a good dose of silent screen. Then all your senses get a jolt at once when the big horror scene comes alive. The most suspenseful scene is when the boy stumbles out onto the highway clutching his sliced throat. It's a real hair raiser!! But, without revealing too much, I guess I will close by saying that this is by far one of the best horror films I have ever seen. A little strange, but, then again, this IS a Stephen King film. Need I say more??