Let's be real for a second. By the time 1999 rolled around, the Children of the Corn series was basically a direct-to-video punchline. You had a franchise that started with a decent Stephen King adaptation in '84 and somehow mutated into a never-ending cycle of creepy kids in fields. But then came Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return, and suddenly, horror fans had a reason to pay attention again. Why? Because John Franklin was back.
He was the original Isaac Chroner. The high-pitched, terrifying child preacher who started it all.
Seeing him return should have been a massive win. Instead, we got a movie that is—honestly—a total fever dream of late-90s tropes, confusing lore, and a plot that tries way too hard to be a psychological thriller. It’s weird. It’s clunky. Yet, for some reason, we’re still talking about it decades later. Maybe it’s the nostalgia. Or maybe it’s just because the title sounds like a heavy metal album cover from a garage band.
What actually happens in Children of the Corn 666?
The plot follows Hannah Martin, played by Natalie Ramsey. She’s traveling to Gatlin, Nebraska, to find her birth mother. It’s your standard "search for identity" setup that inevitably leads to people getting murdered by agricultural tools. What she doesn't know is that she was the first-born child of the original cult.
She's the "prophecy" kid.
Isaac is back, but he’s not the screaming zealot we remember. He’s been in a coma for 19 years since the events of the first film. He wakes up, and he’s... well, he’s still John Franklin, which is the best part of the movie. He has this eerie, ageless quality that makes every scene he’s in significantly better than the rest of the script. The movie tries to pivot away from the "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" monster stuff and focuses more on the destiny of Hannah and the weird, obsessive cult members still lurking in the shadows of Gatlin.
There’s this guy Gabriel, played by Paul Hipp. He’s a "mysterious" stranger who helps Hannah. Spoiler alert: he’s not just a nice guy with a jeep. The film plays with the idea of a 666 prophecy—hence the title—suggesting that Hannah's return will trigger some kind of ultimate awakening for the corn god.
🔗 Read more: Shamea Morton and the Real Housewives of Atlanta: What Really Happened to Her Peach
The John Franklin factor
Let’s talk about John Franklin. In the 1984 original, he was actually 23 years old playing a child. By the time Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return filmed, he was in his 40s. He actually co-wrote the script with his cousin, Tim Sulka.
You can tell they cared about the character.
Isaac in this film is more nuanced. He’s manipulative. He’s tired. He’s trying to reclaim a legacy that the world has moved past. It’s a bit meta if you think about it—an actor returning to a role that defined his career in a franchise that’s struggling to stay relevant. Franklin brings a level of gravitas that the series desperately needed after the absurdity of Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror.
The problem is the movie doesn't always know what to do with him. It traps him in hospital rooms and dark basements for a lot of the runtime. When he finally gets to do "Isaac stuff," the movie ends. It’s a bit of a letdown for fans who wanted to see him leading a massive army of kids again. Instead, we get a smaller, more intimate story about bloodlines.
Why the "666" branding was a weird choice
The title is a mess. Calling it "666" was a blatant marketing ploy to ride the coattails of turn-of-the-millennium Satanic panic and The Omen vibes. It doesn't really fit the established mythology of He Who Walks Behind the Rows.
Stephen King’s original short story was folk horror. It was about the isolation of the Midwest and the terrifying vacuum left when traditional religion is replaced by something older and hungrier. By the sixth movie, that was gone. We moved into "Chosen One" territory.
💡 You might also like: Who is Really in the Enola Holmes 2 Cast? A Look at the Faces Behind the Mystery
- The 1984 Film: Focused on survival and the horror of the cult.
- The Sequels: Experimented with urban settings (Part 3) and straight-up slashers (Part 4).
- The 666 Entry: Tried to be a legacy sequel before "legacy sequels" were a cool thing.
The movie feels like it’s fighting itself. One half wants to be a gritty, serious look at the trauma of Gatlin survivors. The other half wants to be a cheesy B-movie with over-the-top kills. The kills, by the way, are surprisingly tame compared to some of the earlier entries. There’s a lack of the "mean spirit" that made the first two films memorable.
The Gatlin lore expansion
One thing this movie does well—or at least interestingly—is showing what happens to a town after a cult massacre. Gatlin feels like a ghost town that’s been haunted by its own history.
There are "normal" people living there now, but they’re all looking over their shoulders. It adds a layer of paranoia. We see how the shadow of Isaac still looms over the geography. Even when he’s in a coma, the town is stuck in 1984.
However, the logic falls apart if you think about it for more than ten seconds. How has the government not bulldozed the entire county of Gatlin by now? After five movies' worth of mass murders, you’d think the FBI would have a permanent office in the middle of the cornfields. But no, in the world of Children of the Corn 666, people just keep driving into Nebraska and acting surprised when they find a scythe-wielding teenager.
Critical reception and the fan verdict
Critics hated it. Obviously. It holds a pretty dismal rating on Rotten Tomatoes, usually hovering in the 0% to 10% range depending on the year.
But horror fans are a different breed.
📖 Related: Priyanka Chopra Latest Movies: Why Her 2026 Slate Is Riskier Than You Think
If you talk to people who grew up browsing the aisles of a Blockbuster, this movie has a certain charm. It’s the "Isaac movie." It’s better than Part 5 and arguably more coherent than Part 7 (the one with the CGI corn roots). It’s a middle-of-the-road entry in a franchise that has some truly deep valleys.
The biggest complaint? The ending. It’s abrupt. It feels like they ran out of money or time. Just as the stakes get high and the "666" prophecy starts to actually mean something, the credits roll. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the nature of the corn god and whether Isaac was ever really in control.
Production trivia you probably didn't know
It’s worth noting that this film was shot back-to-back with other Dimension Films projects. This was the era where Miramax/Dimension was cranking out sequels to Halloween, Hellraiser, and Children of the Corn like a factory.
- Directorial Style: Kari Skogland directed this. She actually went on to do some huge things, including The Falcon and the Winter Soldier for Marvel. You can see her trying to bring some visual flair to a low-budget project, using Dutch angles and weird lighting to hide the small sets.
- The Scripting: John Franklin wanted to kill off the character for good. He felt that Isaac’s story needed a definitive ending. Whether he got that or not is up for debate, but his intention was to provide closure.
- The Music: The score is very "late 90s thriller." It trades the choral, haunting chants of the original for synth beats and jump-scare stingers.
How to watch it today
If you’re looking to dive into the corn, you can usually find this on various streaming services like AMC+, Shudder, or even for free on ad-supported platforms like Tubi. It’s often bundled in "4-Movie Collection" DVDs that you can find in the $5 bin at Walmart.
Is it a "good" movie? No. Is it an essential watch for someone trying to understand the evolution of 90s horror? Absolutely. It represents that weird transition period where horror was moving away from the slasher boom of the 80s and trying to find its footing in a post-Scream world.
Actionable insights for your next movie night
If you're planning to marathon this franchise, don't go in expecting a masterpiece. Here is how to actually enjoy it:
- Watch the 1984 original first. You need the context of Isaac's peak to appreciate his "old man" version in 666.
- Skip Part 5. Honestly, you won't miss much. 666 acts more as a direct spiritual successor to the first film than a continuation of the previous sequels.
- Pay attention to the background. The production design in the Gatlin hospital and the local homes is actually pretty decent at conveying a town that stopped evolving decades ago.
- Look for John Franklin’s performance. Forget the plot holes. Just watch him work. He understands the "camp" of the role while still playing it completely straight.
The Children of the Corn series is one of the longest-running horror franchises in history, despite never having a massive theatrical hit after the first one. Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return stands as a testament to the power of a single iconic character. Even in a mediocre movie, a great villain can keep a story alive. Isaac Chroner is that villain.
To get the most out of your viewing, focus on the lore of the "first-born" and how it retcons the original ending. It’s a fascinating, if flawed, attempt to bring the series full circle. Grab some popcorn (avoid the corn puns, please) and settle in for a weird slice of Nebraska horror history.