“Disciples of the Crow” A.K.A ” The coolest version of Children of the Corn”
And also this Dollar Baby you can watch at this page
“Children of the Corn” was probably the first Stephen King movie I saw. And, of course, it was my first contact with King’s work, years before I decided to read for pleasure and buy “Pet Sematary“. But it is fact that this first movie opened the path for me to became a Constant Reader l, because I used to go to the video store to rent horror movies since I was a kid and I started to look for King’s name on the covers (I clearly remember the day I rented “Children of corn 2 and 3“) And, since it was the 90s, there were a bunch of movies with King’s name on the cover to watch and that name stuck in my head. And that is what made me choose “Pet Sematary” when I was looking for the first book to read without a teacher telling me so.
But let’s get back to “Children of the Corn“, the long feature: if you think about it, I am only writing this review today because a TV Channel here in Brazil used to screen long feature movies such as “Children of the Corn“. I only became a Constant Reader and later made my Dollar Baby movie because Linda Hamilton was a hit actress back then and every movie she was used to call attention. So, thank you Channel 4, thank you Linda Hamilton and thank you “The Terminator” too. (I am hearing the “Terminator” theme song in my head now? Sure I am.)
What I didn’t know back then was that 1 year before “Children of the Corn” was released, another movie based upon the same short story was released :”Disciples of the Crow“, John Woodward version of “Children of the Corn“. I got to see this short movie for the first time when I bought a VCD of it at a newsstand in the late 90s. It was a VCD where not only had this short movie but also 2 other horror movies that I used to think were also King related. When I watched Woodward’s movie I thought it was just ok and I used to prefer the long feature. But years later, once I was already used to short movies, I gave a second chance to the short movie and just fell in love.
You see, I used to prefer the long feature because of the effective memory I had with it. Once I watched it again two years ago I understood why they made the choices they did and why it is still such a popular franchise. But now I think it is just a fun movie, a fun franchise (the first 2 movies at least), but now I see that the first one really did not age well. On the other hand, the short movie is still a classic well adapted and did age well. I will explain.
The screenplay written by John Woodward was kind of faithful to the original short story, at least until the choices he made for the end. You see, the long feature and the short movie made the same “mistake” when they chose to have a happy ending. But I do understand why they chose that: both were made in a time when not having a happy ending was a problem, especially for long features that hit the big screens. Because the audience used to prefer happy endings. But Woodward’s movie at least had that open ending. Yes, the couple did escape, but when you see the knife stuck in the car and the car engine getting hotter you think “did they really escape?” And this is one of the many reasons that nowadays I prefer short movies. Because, although Woodward only adapted the first 2/3 of the original tale, this choice to the end is similar to the way King ended his short story: without trying to make Good VS Evil the way the movie and later the franchise did.
In the long feature Linda Hamilton did beat the monster, she beats “The one who walks behind the rows” and that happens because long feature movies back then needed to have that kind of closure. But short tales don’t have that need, nor do short movies. That is the main reason I like short movies nowadays, because there is no need to watch Good kicking the ass of Evil. Why do I prefer this? Let’s face it: that is life. We don’t have happy endings every time in life. Actually, most of the time it looks like all we see is Evil winning, am I right?
Another thing that I love in Woodward’s version is how he chose to introduce in the story the kids before what happend at the town. The kids gather and idolize the crow (the scene where they are boiling the frog is so cool). Later we see them at the church listening to the Pastor and at the same time we see Billy’s mom being indiscreet with her boyfriend right next to her kid and during the pastor’s speech. After that, when we see the kids looking at each other we understand that they are about to do something, something evil.
You see, this kind of religious discussion/ hypocrisy/ obsession kind of brings us to some of King’s other works and characters. This “King’s way” is so well adapted here. This religious distortion was in the original tale and also in so many other passages in King’s work, and this is another reason why this Dollar Baby is so special. In this short movie, the second Dollar Baby ever made, based upon a short movie that one year later would hit the screens as a long feature, Woodward did what many other directors couldn’t achieve in long features and short movies: Woodward beautifully adapted to the screen “King’s voice” .You know, maybe not even when King himself while directed a movie or wrote one, not even then a filmmaker adapted so well King’s voice like John Woodward did. Yeah, we do have some filmmakers that adapted to short movies and long features that also nailed, but not the way Woodward did: almost not using dialogues aaaaaand his actors were kids. Yes, once I read again the short tale before watching the short movie to write this review I did miss more of the main characters (adults), I wished I could see at Woodward’s movie more of their broken relationship, but now that I stopped to think and look back I see that the way Woodward wrote the whole damn thing is almost perfect. The kids are as important to the story as the main characters. On Woodward’s version we see more of the kids and more of the religious hypocrisy. And that is Stephen King, that is his voice, his universe.
Even the changes that Woodward made, they all make sense because it still sounds like King. And that is a difficult thing to do, because if you like King’s work and do respect it is hard to choose to change something that looks perfect. But, as I already said before in past reviews, “there are things that work in a book, but won’t work in a movie”. For instance, the way Woodward chose to focus on a crow and not at “The one who walks behind the rows”. You see, for a short movie it was the best choice, because it took me one hour and a half to read the original tale, but Woodward would only have 20 minutes or so to his movie. So it would be better not to explain too much what the kids worship or not (thank God! Or maybe thank the one who walks behind the rows). The one who walks behind the rows is only mentioned once, quickly, and thank God Woodward chose not to show Him, cause once it was an independent movie it could be kind of lame. The long feature was lame and they had a budget for it…
Another great thing about this movie is the art design, there are so many cool things they manufactured for the movie, such as the crucifixes made from corn, the painting hung at the church and the coolest of them all: the knife with the crow’s head. Those things made it a better movie, the crucifix and the painting were exactly like I imagined while I was reading the short tale.
The empty town too, that is another thing to aplaude at this movie and the ones to congratulate for that are the producers. In the movie I see those empty streets and I believe that. I believe that it is almost a ghost town, it reminded me so much of the empty streets during the pandemic and if you also remember this, you know that it was scary.
And last, but not least, Woodward’s great achievements in the movie were the kids. Because if you are not a filmmaker you have no idea how it is to work with kids in a movie. Believe when I say, it is hard. If you are a parent, imagine trying to make your kid say or behave exactly the same way 18 times until it is good for the camera. Yeah, it is that hard. And for this short movie in particular, this story in particular, kids are so important. There are scenes where they say so much only using their eyes. And, of course, at the end of the movie when a bunch of kids are trying to kill the main characters, dude, that would be insane to direct that scene.
And the director was also at that scene, cause John Woodward plays Older Billy’s character. I bet that it was a hard scene to shoot, but I also bet that it was a hell of fun, cause Woodward nailed it. Every single scene where we see kids in it, the kids are great. Sometimes they are even better than the main actors. John, kids, thank you for that.
I screened this short movie last year at the Brazilian Dollar Baby Film Fest without knowing that it was the second Dollar Baby ever made. Now that I know it, my respect for the movie and John Woodward’s work are even bigger. This is a classic Dollar Baby, don’t you guys ever forget that.
The Dollar Baby’s grade? We from SKSM give all 5 fingers from the dead guy’s hand, with all due respect. Thank God for the original Dollar Baby filmmakers. Thank the one who walks behind the rows for the path they opened.
See you guys next time.
Leonardo Granado.
