I loathed Children of the Corn, not only was it totally different from Stephen King's darker and unsettling short story, but it was also boring and not in the least scary. I had no interest in seeing the rest of the series as I figured if the first was horrible, how well could the rest hold up? However, just recently a friend gave the first three to me so I thought what the hell, I will watch them. First off, I thought this Children of the Corn film was better than the first for a few reasons, the major one being this was rather funny (unintentionally of course). I found this one more interesting than the first due to the preacher being creepier this time, and there were some surprisingly cool (and cheesy) deaths which kept pace relatively even.<br /><br />The story is quite simple really, the massacre at Gatlin is discovered by the neighbouring town Hemingford. The children are adopted by the townspeople and everything seems peachy. At the same time, a reporter is trying to uncover the story of the massacre while trying to deal with his angry son. Soon enough, the children have found a new preacher, and the adults of Hemingford are all meeting grisly demises.<br /><br />Yes, the story is clichéd and not at all good, but it is enough to keep the movie moderately interesting. The acting is pretty average from the entire cast, save one or two decent actors. The level of gore is increased from the first film, and it actually helps this sequel a lot. I did not take this movie seriously, and I really don't think anyone should. Just accept it as bad (but improved) entry to the Children of the Corn series.<br /><br />1½/5