Los niños diabólicos III

I first saw this in the mid 90s on a vhs. Kinda hated the film then cos they moved the settings from the rural town to a city. Revisited it recently n had a good laugh at the cheesy monster. Some of the creature films from the 50s r better than this lousy jumbled mess.

This is the third film in the Children of the Corn series and not a continuation of the previous two. Two brothers are adopted from a rural town after their father is murdered in the corn fields. The brothers r brought to Chicago by their new parents.

This one is not at all scary, ther is no tension or atmosphere. The acting is awful but it is a bit gory. This lame horror film has Charlize Theron in her first non-speaking role.

After the disappointing "Children of the Corn II", the 1996 direct-to-video sequel subtitled "Urban Harvest" moves the setting from a rural Midwestern town to the Windy City of Chicago. A change of atmosphere gives the "Children of the Corn" franchise a much-needed boost and this entry is sometimes scary, often imaginative and boasts some unique special effects.

A couple (Jim Metzler and Nancy Lee Grahn) adopt a pair of abandoned teens. The older one (Ron Melendez) is conflicted with his Gatlin, Nebraska past, while the younger one (Daniel Cerny) prepares to recruit an all new batch of followers to resurrect He Who Walks Behind the Rows.

The movie is pretty tense and actually works on many levels... but the finale -- while planned out well -- looks really cheap onscreen and brings about lots of unintentional laughter.

"Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" is one of the strongest entries in the franchise, and for the first 85 of its 91 minute running time, it proves to be a first-rate thriller.

...but ruined by the ending. The infamous ending of the third part of the Children of the Corn series feels like a disaster of epic proportions that kills what otherwise could be a near perfect movie. Nevertheless, this movie has many good things that are worth a watch.

The plot is a very good twist to the well-known saga of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows". After the horrifying events in Gatlin, two brothers, Eli(Daniel Cerny) & Joshua(Ron Melendez) are sent to a foster house in Chicago. Their new family is very eager to have children and gives them a warm welcome, but Eli & Joshua feel the cultural shock as they try to get used to the urban environment. While Joshua tries to fit in, the younger Eli begins to plant corn in order to bring the cult of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" to the world.

It is indeed a very good script, and for the most part it works. It is a huge improvement over the past sequels and in my humble opinion, sometimes it even surpasses the original. Daniel Cerny's performance is outstanding and one wonders why he suddenly stopped working when he was one of the very few child actors who could give a believable performance.

The eerie atmosphere is back and there are great moments of suspense and surrealistic imagery. This is what Children of the Corn movies should be. The direction is pretty good, and it handles the script with perfection and lets it flow with good rhythm.

If all these is so good, what can be so bad that makes the movie fail in the end? Without giving spoilers, let me just say that even when the SFX are top-notch for a low-budget movie; the ending pretends to be of epic proportions and ends up being one of the biggest SFX disasters ever.

Don't get me wrong, even with it's HUGE SFX faults, it still is better than average, but it breaks everything that was build up to that moment, the eerie atmosphere fill with suspense turns into a savage gore fest in the style of "Evil Dead" but without the talent. It just feels like a different movie.

Overall, it's worth a rent, especially for Daniel Cerny's performance who truly saves the film(no surprise that it's when he is gone that the movie falls down). It's good entertainment if you see it with a open mind.

7/10

"Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" is a somewhat tacky and unnecessary sequel to the moderately successful Stephen King adaptation and its slightly under-rated sequel.

In the film, two youths from Gatlin (the setting of the first two films) are taken in by a yuppie couple in Chicago. The older of the two fits in relatively well, but the younger has plans of his own. Planting a corn field in the abandoned property next door, he creeps out his adoptive parents and eventually converts the entire teenage population to his maze worshipping cult.

Despite a predictable plot that seems to be missing chunks (at what point did Eli win over his peers?), dodgy special effects and wooden performances by its relatively unknown cast, the film is moderately enjoyable for what it is. If you want to see some brutal and over-the-top death scenes committed by vegetation, then "Children of the Corn III" hardly disappoints. Elsewhere, however, the film comes up short, and that's all there really is to it.

The film was dumped in theaters briefly in 1994 before being thrust into complete oblivion, making room for four direct-to-video sequels and a made-for-TV remake. Look closely, and you'll spot Charlize Theron in her very first role as an extra.

mostly everyone on here has been saying that this movie sucks and that the acting is bad, but the acting actually is very good. That was what made me sit through this movie, also I'm a fan of these movies anyway, I live for horror! the best performance in ths movie was given by Daniel Cerny, the worst performance was given by Ron Melendez. so, peace out.