User Reviews

This sequel is fully twice as long as part 1, and it plays like someone couldnt quite pull the budget for a trilogy. i can see two stories that are ruined by mashing them together. the camerawork and sound fx are cringeworthy. the direction and performances are better, without doubt, but the obvious editing disaster makes this a 2+ hour slip n slide of unfinished business. its got the modern classic horror open ending, hey, part three might be 4 hours long! not particularly recommended. this kinda thing is an acquired taste, even when its properly finished

I'm surprised to see this movie given quality reviews on here given that I could find virtually no worth in it whatsoever. It's a real time waster of a film, a follow up to the original that nobody asked for. The protagonist is the sister of one of the victims in the original film, teaming up with a cursed family in order to prevent tragedy striking again.

This film strives desperately for a RING-style vibe but completely fails to impress in every respect. There are many attempts at atmosphere building and virtually none of them work; it just falls flat time and again. The sinister music is the only decent thing about it. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of amateur cast members sharing inane dialogue to no good effect.

Okay so yes it's a low budget, pure amateur attempt at a supernatural thriller and I'm evaluating it with that in mind. But after one dream sequence after another, after another, after another, after another all in just the first half, you give up on maintaining any suspense in any scene to follow. The old saying fool me once, shame on you,,Fool me twice, shame on ME, comes into play VERY early...

It also runs way too long and has only about 30 seconds of real suspenseful action for a two hour film... The females in the film though all did a good job with their parts, the one male lead's character however was just not very believable and just too stiff and dull to watch.

Hopefully the writer and director will get better in any attempt to create such a movie in the future..

"The Girl in the Cornfield" was a short, fun, spooky campfire tale. Very amateur, but ambitious. The sequel branched out to try to be something more and in my opinion, accomplished it.

Tiffany, the brave young girl from the first movie, is back trying to find a way to stop the Woman in White. Meanwhile the entity is haunting a new family, apparently accompanied by multiple demons (or at least multiple manifestations). When Tiffany meets the eldest daughter Addy, she tries to save the family from the Woman in White's evil intentions.

The story is riveting. For a movie that is over two hours it's well paced and managed to keep me interested in every development. You don't know what the hell is going on for most of the film and the eventual payoff is satisfying. The acting was also solid. The actress playing Tiffany especially shines but really they all played their parts well. No one stunk it up or was cheesy. And as for scares, there is a lot of suspense, and a handful of jump scares that got me really good.

If you like microbudget movies and are used to watching them on Netflix and Amazon Prime - this is a good one. If you like your movies made for $100,000 or more, you should probably watch something else.

I'll refer to both GIRL IN THE CORNFIELD (GITC) and GIRL IN THE CORNFIELD 2 (GITC2) in this review.

If you're going in blind, know that these are not fast-paced action-horror movies, horror comedies, or campy b-movies. They're slow paced, creepy, suspenseful thrillers. The closest thing I can compare these movies to is reading an urban legend crossed with an epic horror novel like Tommyknockers.

GITC and GITC2 both feature great scripts by Ryan Callaway, wonderful plotting and characterization. I loved the way these movies to the time to explore how the characters process their experiences.

Some of the performances were so-so, and sometimes that hurt the scene--this was mainly a problem in GITC; the performances in GITC2 were stronger. If I had to pick, I would say GITC2 is the superior movie.

Speaking of performances: Madeline Lupi was impressive in GITC and more so in GITC2. Specific to GITC2, Michelle Lulic was outstanding and the child actors were surprisingly good.

I felt that removing some of the scoring could have helped, particularly in the first movie. Perhaps I simply got used to it, but I didn't find that to be a problem in 2.

Given the microbudget, special effects were handled very well. Use of CGI was limited, thankfully.

I watched both of these movies back to back and my appreciation of Ryan Callaway's work grew the longer I watched. Contrary to the featured review, neither of these movies is a "zero budget waste of time."

"The Girl in the Cornfield 2" is smartly written and suspenseful. It's flawed, in particular the middle act which is a tad lengthy, and a couple of the effects could've been done better - and probably would've if they had more money.

Outside of that the dialogue was much better than what you would expect out of a low budget film. Even Hollywood has some stinkers in that department. And the story, even if long, made sense and was actually pretty cool. I'm not sure how anyone could watch this movie and think it had no redeeming value, whatsoever. I understand not liking a movie personally, but there is plenty to enjoy here. Several well-staged moments that made me forget it was a low budget film, atmospheric music, relatable characters (in particular some kicka$$ female leads), and some good scares. Hats off to the kids in this one, too they stole the show.