Reseñas de usuarios

This astounding sixth addition to the Children of the Corn had potential from the start. The antagonist from the 1984 original was returning and being played by the very same actor, it had so much potential to steer the franchise back on course.

Alas it wasn't meant to be. Sadly Isaac returns into a mess of a film with a terrible cliched concept, an outstandingly dull pace and a film that contributes nothing to the series at all.

Credit where credit is due it does have a great twist and the final scene is great, but then immediatly ruins it by having a poor finale to that.

Starring the excellent Stacy Keach Isaac's Return should have been great but poor writing killed it stone dead.

The Good:

Decent twist

The return of Isaac and same actor is great

The Bad:

Very boring

Disapointing ending

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Calling a sixth movie 666 is tacky when it has nothing to do with the source material

I thought "He who walks behind the rows would be taller

My friends and I continuously rent movies to watch as a group -- the worst, most horrible, cheesy hilarity we can find in Blockbuster, that is. We got hung up on the Children of the Corn series from the start. Corn and demonic children, what a FANTASTIC combination! We laughed through each and every Corn flick up til 666, which we rented last night. All those wonderful earlier films about He Who Walks Behind The Rows... and for that! How disappointing! :( It wasn't even that funny this time. Where were all the _children_?!?! My suggestion: don't even bother. I give this film a 3/10, just because they didn't have as many continuity mistakes and the gore was actually sort of gory.

Come on, COTC fans. This sequel was absolutely dreadful. The characters were so stupid. Hannah knew what would happen if she stayed around and was even told the truth by her own mother. However, she decided to be very dense and stick around for no reason!!! She should have just left town instead of sticking around there.

Plus, how the hell could they bring Issac back?! He had gotten killed in part 1. You all saw it. It was badly written. And remember, Gatlin had become a amish community, how could it become a city again after only like 3 or 4 years?! Not to mention everything looked so 60's about the town.

It was just not believable and horribly thought out. 1 was alright, 2 was forgettable, 3 was cheesy fun, 4 was pretty well executed, 5 was a fun slashfest. However, this one just bit in my book. The series is not about Issac as he is treated like he is in this one. Hopefully COTC 7 redeems it.

I first saw this in the early 2k on cable tv.

Revisited it recently.

Although this is the first film in the series to feature John Franklin reprising his role as Isaac and also the only one which is loosely connected with the original film, this 6th part in the series is annoyingly slow n boring. The only thing noteworthy is the twist.

It has very few body count n the known face is Stacey Keach.

There is a scene in the movie where in the middle of the night, a woman enters a hotel room (how she got the key is beyond me) n tries to touch another woman lying in bed, but leaves once she realizes that the person lying is awake. The other woman doesn't do anything inspite of being awake but follows the intruder's truck until dawn into the middle of the corn-field and then later the purpose changes.

Another wonder scene, a couple on the run for their life n chased by cultists enter a barn, have shower n then sex (but very lousy one). And later the girl walks off from the barn as if nothing happened.

Killer kids led by a charismatic bible-versed midget (Isaac) claiming to be a prophet of "he who walks behind the rows"...thus the series began. Although the first "Corn" was not a great film, the premise alone kept it engaging. Amazingly enough, it has spawned 5 sequels. The latest involves a daughter of a former cult member of the original "Corn" returning to the corn-stalked town of Gaitlin with the hopes of tracking down her mother. What follows is an incoherent mess including the return of Isaac from a 19 year long coma, a "prophecy" foretelling a breed of new "killer kids" coming from our lead character Hannah and Isaac's firstborn son, and a case of mistaken identity resulting in the definitive answer of the question who is "he who walks behind the rows?". You will be disappointed with the answer. Fans of cheap scares, ultra-gore, shoddy but entertaining special effects and other B-movie characteristics will find this movie absent of all the above. Fans of serious cinema would not have rented this movie due to the title alone (try to tell your significant other that we are going to enjoy CHILDREN OF THE CORN 666: ISAAC'S RETURN tonight). Consequently, this dull movie has no audience. B-movie fans DYING to enjoy a COC sequel tonight should look up COC 3: Urban Harvest. Directed by Anthony Hixox and effects by Screaming Mad George, it is the liveliest entry in a series that should have died before it even began. I am no longer renting any more COCs unless John Woo wants to take a stab at horror.

It was horrible, confusing and the first movie was the best. I thought it would've been much better since Issac was returning. If you're looking for a completion to the Children of the Corn series, you won't find it here. And the 666, evil appeal is way overrated!

"Children of the Corn" was just another flaky horror series that was ruined by excessive sequel overkill. Was all of this nonsense necessary? Did the editors of Fangoria Magazine need something to fill up its pages during the lean years of horror? Yes, the 1990's didn't offer us much in the realm of horror, but this stinker was the turd on top of the cake. The "Children of the Corn" series should have ended after the first movie, which was actually worth watching.

Movies like this are made for people who have nothing else better to do than rent "Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return" at 3 in the morning. A complete and absolute waste of time and money! Only good for the "absolute cheapest" sleazy sofa dates.

Entering this sixth entry to the long drawn out COTC series, I was intrigued at the thought of Isaac's return. The original film is one that I enjoyed a lot, so there were hopes that this could bring the series back to it's successful roots. Unfortunately for me, this ended being a major flop.

We meet Hannah who is traveling to Gatlin, the infamous town from the original Children of the Corn. She lets viewers know that she was born there 19 years prior and has visions of some kind from that horrible place even though she was just a baby. Hannah is also planning to search for her mother, who she was told had died. When she gets into a mini car accident, the town sheriff pulls her over and has a reaction when she sees Hannah's name. After being taken to the Gatlin hospital, she finds Isaac in a coma like state. As soon as she touches him, he opens his eyes awaking him from an almost 20 year sleep.

Hannah soon meets a young man named Gabriel that she takes a liking too. Unfortunately for her, he seems to be working with the sheriff and local doctor against her. It is mentioned by them that the prophecy states Hannah must find out the truth of her birth. While she explores Gatlin, we discover that Isaac has a son. The prophecy that Isaac speaks of states that Hannah must sleep with his teenage son and create the new generation of child cultists to carry out the wishes of He Who Walks Behind The Rows. With no one in Gatlin that she can trust, will Hannah escape the horrific prophecy? Or will Isaac succeed in carrying out what he calls the wishes of "He Who Walks Behind The Rows".

The idea of bringing the series back to the original and making a direct sequel to that one was a great idea on paper, but there were significant flaws in the making of the overall movie. Firstly, the acting might be the worst of all sequels to this point. John Franklin was still as good as ever, playing Isaac one last time. He was made for this evil role. Everyone else struggled. Even Nancy Allen and Stacy Keach, who have always delivered in horror, seemed so out of place in a sixth Children of the Corn film. A lot of the younger cast weren't all that good either, with Natalie Ramsey (Hannah) being the exception. The quality of the film was also tough to look at, there was a constant beige/tan filter over the entire movie throughout. It looked really low budget after some stronger sequels.

There were some real positives in this as well. I loved the idea to bring Isaac back and bring us back to what happened after Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton walked away from their broken down car in Gatlin. Using the teenage Rachel and Amos characters that we saw in the original was extremely clever and tied a lot of things together in an interesting way.

Unfortunately, the flaws of COTC 666: Isaac's Return outweigh the positives. This was my least favourite of the series to this point.

4/10

Hannah goes back to her hometown (Gatlin) to find out who her mother is, but on the way she picks up a strange man who fore-shadows her life with a passage from the bible.

We have some talent here, namely Nancy Allen and Stacy Keach, but overall nothing much to speak of. But, at this point, I suspect the budget was so low they could barely afford craft services.

The trivia on IMDb says that John Franklin is the only actor to appear in more than one "Children of the Corn" movie. That is not true. Gary Bullock appeared in parts five and six, although as two different characters. I assume the writer meant "in the same role", but this was not made clear.

Now, that being said, for all the terrible things that could probably be written about this film (and many terrible things have), I have to give them credit for bringing back a character from a prior film -- and the original, no less! The franchise has an awful continuity (if the films all make sense in one universe, it is hard to say) so any attempt to fix that is appreciated.

Disclaimer: Sorry, I'm not going to include any "corn"-related puns in this review, because I don't want to sink that low. So I'm sorry if you're easily amused and wanted to read about how "corny" this movie was, about its "cornball" characters, or even about uni"corn"s. Wahahahha! Sorry, that's lame even for me. Anyway...

This movie sucks beyond your wildest dreams. It's seriously not worth tracking down, not even for the "bad movie"-buffs who enjoyed Plan 9 From Outer Space or 'Manos' The Hands of Fate. It's truly vile, non-scary, non-exciting, non-watchable, non-interesting stupidity and proud of it. Imagine a public restroom that hasn't been cleaned for the past eight weeks or so. That's the setting. Then imagine that someone forgot to flush after having the runs in the nearest stall. That's the cast. Now imagine that a preppy teenybopper who just drank her first beer vomited bile all over the contents of that particular toilet. That's the direction. Now imagine flies crawling all over the contents of that toilet. That's us, the audience. Prepare to be truly "horrorfied".

See it only if Mr. Bean haunts your darkest dreams. By the way, you don't have to thank me for the mental image. It was my gift to you.

(r#102)

This sixth edition has all of the right elements--- especially for a movie made with no budget--- great cast, good scares and a wonderful twist ending. Best of all, the original and most demonic leader, Isaac, returns. John Franklin does a stellar performance as does Stacy Keach. A must see for horror fans.

COTC is a cult series: you either love it, even how bad it is, or you just felt like '90 mins waisted in my precious life'. Personally I love it.

When I saw "Isaac" I was shocked; even more when I recognized his picture as being the original guy! The first thought coming up was: "They found a new source". Compare it as Blair Witch part 1 and 2: totally different but still coherent. The movie itself would have been great as the second sequel - not as the sixth. (spolier warning) The movie destroys almost everything parts 1-5 got it's strength: children killing their parents for a better world: the main characters aren't children anymore - and they aren't killing for a better world.

Question remains: is this the worst movie of the series? Answer: No - just watch it after viewing COTC 1! I haven't seen part 7 yet - but I'm already waiting for part 8.

As most fans of this series already know, when a child turned eighteen he or she would be required to sacrifice themselves to "He Who Walks Behind the Rows." But before an 18-year old male would do so he would try to impregnate a female a year or two younger than himself. That being said, a young woman named "Hannah Martin" (Natalie Ramsey) unknowingly has the distinction of being the first child ever born during this particular time 19 years ago. All she knows is that she was given up for adoption by her mother not long after she was born and she feels strangely compelled to drive back to Gatlin, Nebraska to find out what happened to both of her parents. What she doesn't realize is that the child prophet named "Isaac" (John Franklin) is not dead and has been in a coma since that fateful day his followers rebelled against him and put him on a cross. But all of that is about to change and Hannah is the key to it all. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film wasn't too bad but it was somewhat difficult to understand at first due to the lack of character development in regard to some of the supporting actors--and this became especially noticeable during the last scene in the cornfield. Fortunately, it became less murky at the end with the final scene setting itself up for another sequel. Be that as it may, although it doesn't follow the usual theme of its predecessors, this film not only managed to stay faithful to the original story-line but also kept my attention for the most part and for those reasons I have rated it accordingly. Average.

When I rented Children of The Corn 666, I wanted to see a very bad movie...but, surprisingly, the atmosphere was pretty scary and mysterious, and some actors were fine...creepy, isn't it? The first thirty (of the 82 short minutes) minutes of the film actually brought me in the mood, more than the average film. Scary isn't it? Then it becomes a little boring, and the last minutes are clichés...The directing was pretty amazing for what I expected, and it is partly responsible for the nice atmosphere. The main actress sounded a little like those high-school-superficial-cheerleaders (What kind of stupid expression is that???) and looked like them...the storyline is pretty stupid though...and very simple...but I have to say that this film corresponds a lot more to the "Horror movie" kind than most movies that are classified as Horror movies. I almost feel guilty saying all this...but it's true. Too bad most of the actors were bad, the scenario was stupid and the ending very cliché, because the first impression it gives you is that you'll be scared from the beginning to the end...not true...and only the fact that this impression is there gives points to this film. Bad, but not that much...5/10

I guess you'll have to forgive me for not having seen all of the movies in this series. I still saw most, but I might get some details wrong about how I'm confused about this movie. First of all, it reveals that Isaac has been in a coma or something since the first movie. I believe in the first movie he died and then came back as a zombie or something and the story with him just ended right there. Was there something in Parts 4 and 5 I missed? I would watch him, but I think these movies are stupid and am not going to waste my time with all of them.

The fact that I'm doing most of them is good enough. I admit that it was interesting to learn about Isaac returning. He was literally the only character that I knew of that appeared in more than one of these movies. I remember his hammy acting from the first film and how it was entertaining to see that. It made the first film at least not as bad as the sequels. Here, Isaac is pretty boring and really not even that important to the story.

This movie features the talk of a prophecy of a girl who needs to make more children of the corn with Isaac's son. I don't know how or when Isaac had a son. Are there even any children in this? Well, there is this one scene with a bunch of kids but they never show up again. The guy who played Isaac actually suffered from a disease that stopped him from growing as he was 25 in the first movie! This movie has no point and is just another entry in this purposeless series. *

Just because Stephen King wrote it ... doesn't mean its any good! And that is pretty much what I feel about all the corny movies of children taking over the world ... didn't happen in the 60s, and it didn't happen in all of these movies either. Filming content was very good. Editing was? Dialogue had a few ridiculous mistakes. He that walks behind the rose? When has anyone ever seen a rose walk that didn't wind up in the madhouse?! The main character could have escaped numerous times, but did not. The storyline was very predictable. It was nice to see Nancy Allen again, she was so good in Carrie, and her performance in this was pretty good also.

Hey, maybe its just me ... I have a huge problem with short stories being stretched into two hours of not much else to say. I found The Langoliers and The Stand to be a total bore. Ditto when it comes to The Tommyknockers, Storm Of The Century, and Riding The Bullet.

Many years ago, I saw a couple of 'Children of the Corn' movies, but I am not a fan or a follower of this series. I have just watched 'Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return' on VHS and I have not understood the story. Hannah is a eighteen years old woman, who comes to a small location trying to get information about her mother. There is a weird guy in coma in a hospital for eighteen years, and in the end, her arrival is fulfilling a dark prophecy. I found the story very confused, but maybe because I do not know the characters. I do not recommend this movie for anybody but those who follows the sequels of 'Children of the Corn'. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): 'Colheita Maldita 666: Isaac Está de Volta' ('Cursed Harvest 666: Isaac is Back')

The sixth part of the "Children of the Corn" franchise has very bad ratings and criticism and, under the influence of negative reviews and not very impressive beginning, I almost gave up on it. I didn't and I don't regret it. The film is low-budget and quite sloppy made, but it has its qualities, which, I dare to say, rise it above all previous sequels and, together with the original movie from 1984, make it the only installment in the franchise worthy of watching.

Unlike the previous parts, which rely on visual intimidation, almost completely neglecting the story, "Isaac's Return" is based on a fairly good idea and a decent script, with an interesting story and nice twist. The acting is on the level for this type of flick and the directing is good, with some interesting solutions. It has many flaws and drawbacks and it is not nearly intense and frightening as one horror and one adaptation of King should be, but it's quite decent entertainment for one viewing.

5/10

I guess they got the director -- who pretty much only does TV -- because television directors can put out product on the cheap.

One example of a TV director who made great features is Sam Peckinpaw. The director of this movie isnt among the good directors.

The movie is a mess.

Everything about the way it is presented is wrong. Makes for a really bad movie. Only reason I stuck with it was to see Isaac. That was my mistake.

Children Of The Corn 666 Isaacs Return

This movie started of really spooky, I really enjoyed that scenes, Main lead, her voice is very annoying and with Isaacs Return and his voice, sound likes cat nails on blackboard.

I found This movie was slightly better then the 5 movie.

It did not have much gore it in, but it was some-what entertaining and movie can be really confusing at times and also liked the twist at end.

Acting was not great but it was watchable, still I could not connect to any of them as, i Just found them really annoying.

This one is worth watching! 4 out of 10

Okay I am the biggest COC fan. I love the first one and the fourth one but the rest were weak, although the fifth one was okay. the second was weak and the third one had a $3 budget. I was real excited to know that the "final" COC was coming out and Isaac was returning. I was hoping for more COC alumnis to show up like the kids that played Job and Sara, but they didn't even have the real Rachel returned. Okay, this chick is finding her birthparent who she learns was an original member of the religious cult in Nebraska led by a bunch of kids who worship some Corn god called "he who walks blah blah" you know its name. She discovers that a man named Isaac went into a coma 19 years ago almost, he recovers the day before her 19th birthday making it fall into place. Please note that the original was in 1984 and Isaac didn't go into a coma he was killed and then resurrected to kill Malachi so how could he have been knocked out for 19 years if the original was made 15 years ago. Come on! I have to admit good acting, okay script, messed up plot I give Children of the Corn 666 ** out of **** (2 out of 4 for those who can't read "star")

I found this sequel to be the best one yet...Hannah, a survivor of the Gatlin incident returns to Gatlin to find her roots after being adopted. She finds herself faced with Isaac who has re-claimed his hold over the children and town of Gatlin along with a neighboring town, then enter in Michael who overthrows Isaac, and plans to offer two sacrifices to "he who walks behind the rows". Amongst all this Hannah manages to find love in the form of a young man who comes to visit Gatlin with his reporter father and gets involved with the children. He's ordered to kill Hannah by Michael and his father and an indian friend (also a survivor) intervene and save the day. Really enjoyed this sequel and recommend it to all COC fans.

I won't say this movie was terrific, because it wasn't. But i can say that it wasn't bad either. I mean, if you watch the first Children of the Corn and then watch this one, you wouldn't even know there were 4 other movies. The acting was good, the premise was ok. It wasn't that realistic, if you go by what happened in the first movie, but come on, it's a horror movie how many of them ARE realistic? If you are to watch any Children of the corn movies, watch the first and the last and skip the rest. I give it a 7 out of 10.

A few things before I get to my comments on the film: first off, it's HE

WHO WALKS BEHIND THE ROWS, not "Thee" Who Walks Behind The Rows.

Secondly, if you're going to condense the films by using the first

letter of each word in the title, it's COTC, not COC. Now that I've

vented the inaccuracies I've read for the so-called reactions to this

film, I'll get to mine...

HE WHO WALKS BEHIND THE ROWS is NOT some dumb teenager! This utterly

ruined the film, above even the fact of Isaac coming back. Isaac had

DIED in the first Children of the Corn, then was sent back by He Who

Walks Behind The Rows to kill Malachai (that's the correct spelling of

his name) and bring Malachai back with him. Anyway, any true fan of the

series would know that and discredit this film immediately.

Also, you have to remember this is a Dimension direct-to-video release.

Inaccuracies are about in this film (i.e. - the town not looking the

same, the corn being bright green instead of yellow-green and nearly

dead like in the original, the story not following like it should, the

fact that He Who Walks Behind The Rows turns out to be some idiot

boyfriend, etc.)

More than all others, this film was a COMPLETE waste of time. Watch it

only if you're desperate to see how John Franklin envisioned the series

turning out (I guess he sucks as a writer - should have played dead and

kept a good reputation Johnny)