Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999)

With riveting performances from stars John Franklin (CHILDREN OF THE CORN, ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES), Stacy Keach (AMERICAN HISTORY X), and Alix Koromzay (CARRIE II, THE HAUNTING, NIGHTWATCH), ISAAC'S RETURN is the sixth and newest bone-chilling chapter in the thrilling CHILDREN OF THE CORN series! On a trip to find her birth mother, Hannah Martin picks up a dark stranger who kicks off a mysterious chain of events. Little does Hannah know that her journey may help fulfill a sinister prophecy made 19 years earlier by Isaac, the cult's original evil leader! It's a hair-raising movie event you don't want to miss as Isaac makes his terrifying return and the frightening Children Of The Corn achieve their ultimate destiny!

Hes Back!

''Children of the Corn 5 - Fields of Terror'' did relate to this movie. The girl in this movie, Hannah, was the baby born at the end of five.

''Children of the Corn 666 - Isaacs Return''

AKA

''Children of the Corn VI - Isaacs Return''.

Lots and lots of people like this movie being that they brought Isaac back and all. But to be honest, I didn't care for this one too much.

John Franklin ( Isaac ) is like an old man in this movie. He doesn't do any thing what so ever.

You do get to see the human ( true ) form of He Who Walks Behind The Rows. The girl in the church at the first movie, Rachel, is Hannahs mother,

When it is revealed who the real "He" is, the audience is probably shocked about that answer, I was glad to see Isaac killed off the show. This is the SECOND most goriest in the series. Four is the first gories.

Children of the Corn on dirtbikes? This was was weird..... December 7, 2007

Too bad

This is an unfortunate one. Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (CotC6) probably has the best cinematography, best editing, some of the best effects, and some of the creepiest scenes of any CotC film to this point, but the script is a complete mess and helmer Kari Skogland does not seem to be very skilled at directing actors.

For at least the first 10-15 minutes of CotC6, I was prepared to give it at least a 4. Hannah (Natalie Ramsey) is driving to the town of Gatlin, Nebraska--the setting of the first film--and gives a ride to what turns out to be a disturbing ghost. She soon after wipes out in a cornfield, and a creepy policewoman-- nicely cast against type, takes her to a hospital to be checked out, only it's a hospital that's apparently been taken over by mental patients. This is all great stuff, well filmed, with refreshing differences from the rest of the series.

But then as the dialogue and exposition increase, the film begins to fall apart. The plot brings back Isaac (John Franklin) from the first film, with Hannah playing a major role in a "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"-religion prophecy. That maybe wasn't a bad idea, but the script feels like a first or second draft. It's choppy and just doesn't make much sense. The characters are bizarre, as if scripter Tim Sulka and co-writer Franklin kept changing their minds about dispositions every two pages. Hannah will seem gung-ho about experiencing Gatlin's weirdness one minute, oddly indifferent the next, then desperate to escape, and then gung-ho . . . Isaac vacillates between innocuous and evil. Rachel's (Nancy Allen) pendulum swings between psychopathic and protective. Maybe there were two or three completely different approaches tried, but they ran out of money, so the final film was a mash-up?

And Skogland doesn't help. She tends to encourage her cast to overact, she exaggerates the multiple personality feeling, and she makes sure that everything seems pretentiously stagy. November 11, 2007

I AM FURIOUS NOW!

MAN, I HATE THIS! I cannot take this any more. Watch the original and that is it. The original needs no sequel at all. Every sequel to the original sucks. March 20, 2006

Isaac is a midget. LOL

Where to begin, I have no clue. A talentless pool of unknown actors assemble together and do their best to act their way to an undeserved paycheck. The script was juvenile and the acting was just as bad. It is only appropriate that bad acting be accompanied by bad dialogue, don't ya think? There was some unintended comic relief in this messy film. Guess what folks, Isaac returns and he is a midget with a whiney voice. I almost felt bad for Isaac for having been in a coma for so many years only to survive as a silly looking buffoon. I couldn't help but laugh every time poor Isaac had something philisophical to mutter. Utter nonesense and not scary one bit. The whole movie is trash. Oh geez, why do is waste my time. February 5, 2006

A little better than 5

Well, looks like I'm about done with this. The past two viewing tend to suggest that I'd have been better off if I'd stopped with 4, but then I would just spent the remainder of my life wondering what might have been. Much like in 5, I don't know if their is anything too terribly grating or stunningly incompetent about the film as a whole, it's just rather uneventful and fairly dull. As you may have surmised, Isaac is back, and he's still a jerk. This is kinda fun, but John Franklin's mere presence isn't worth too much, and he really doesn't do much of anything. Another plus is that the film is occasionally slightly atmospheric. Only occasionally, and only very slightly, but it's somethin'. Unfortunately, CotC 666 lacks the laugh out loud hilarity of the better portions of 2 and 3, and the slightly intriguing plot and decent gore of 4. So, we aren't left with much. The climax is passably involving, and amusingly nonsensical, but overall it's a long journey to nowhere. That, and where's the killing? This film has only got a single sexy teen, rather than a pack of them, so we have very few preliminary killings. (Well, the protagonists in the CotC films usually weren't very sexy, but you get my meaning.) A few of those would've spiced things up substantially, but this is all we got.

I had an okay time watching this, but I really can't think of any reason why you ought to see it unless you have some bizarre compulsion to see all the CotC films. Not that I'd know anything about that.

Grade: D+ January 10, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...