Customer Reviews

Firestarter 2 - Rekindled

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

After browsing through a few of my fellow critics reviews I need to say this, lighten up. This movie is not that bad considering that it is a sci-fi channel miniseries style film. For a movie that does not need to rely on saying things like (beep) or having tones of (sexual intercourse) that most sequels rely on they really pulled off a treat to the eyes.

I think the problem that most of my fellow critics had was the fact that they read the book, did not like the first film because it did not faithfully adapt to the book. Who cares? The first film was fine and the second one lived up to it's predecessor.

Malcom McDowl played a fine Rainbird as he did an excellent job just like George C. Scott did. The new Charlie (what you expected Drew Barrymore to reprise her role) does a good job as the now grown up Charlie trying to survive as she is still being hunted. Rainbird new plan of more experimented kids provides a deadly advisary for her and overall I would say this movie is worth seeing.

However like I said I am little more liberal with the way I see movies but I honestly think that if one was to give this half a chance they would enjoy it. It is entertaining to watch to those who are willing to give it a chance.

I remember the first Firestarter movie like one of most entertaining stories of Stephen king, with a whole potential to make a sequel, but in this movie have almost nothing to do with the original, the story is predictable and the acting is the worst I seen in months, specially by the guy who play vincent.
Even the soundtrack almost doesn't exist(you can forget the great work of Tangerine dream in the original movie).

Firestarter 2 is an entertaining movie. Although it does not live up to the expectations of Stephen King fans, you must remember that Stephen King had nothing to do with the movie...
Charlie is a grown up now and we should expect her to do grown up things, not just run and cry when life doesn't go her way. The characterization is great. The first part of the movie, she is working in a library and goes to clubs to find male companionship with no strings attatched. What would you expect from someone who has lost everyone she loves and fears loving anyone else for the risk that she may lose them. I am giving this five stars because the other critics are far too harsh. It is a fun movie that the sci-fi channel did a good job with. Rent it first if you like, but I'm sure you will want to add it to your DVD collection.

Eighteen years after the original movie comes this overlong (over two and a half hours), overblown sequel. Set ten years after the first film ends, pyrokinetic teen Charlie McGee (Margueritte Moreau) is now working as a librarian and is aiming to get her life back together. But unfortunately for her agents are still pursuing her and she finds herself having to trust one of them (Malcolm McDowell) and a loopy professor (Dennis Hopper- who else?) in order to survive. The story is nothing great, but I won't be spoiling anything if I say there are lots of explosions. Pity the rest of the movie isn't explosive.
I found FIRESTARTER 2 to be slow, long and just not very interesting. The film makers (poorly) recreate scenes from the original film for flashback sequences, this doesn't work. Hopper and McDowell deserve far better than this. Moreau gives a good performance too, and for that reason this partially redeems FIRESTARTER 2 from 1- star hell.

If it wasn't for its almost 3 hour length, this movie would've been good. The story is interesting, however, by the end of the 2nd hour i was saying to myself "will it ever end"? Many parts of the movie were repetative and unnecessary. But the acting wasn't bad.

.....oh sorry, it was Stephen King rolling in his grave after seeing this awful mini-series/movie!

How anyone involved with this project can even sleep at night is beyond me. Yes, I am a Stephen King fan, and yes I have read the original Firestarter novel. The original Firestarter movie (Drew Barrymore) was reasonable - not fantastic, and not terrible. However, after spotting this movie in the video rental shop, I decided to give it a try, even though it is only one of those "based on the characters movies".

I settled down to watch the movie, and my jaw just dropped and dropped and dropped with disbelief! The main thing which destroyed any credibility the movie may have had was the complete lack of continuity from the first movie - it was like watching a completely different character story really. firstly Charlie's mother died in a completely different way, and the biggest mistake....Rainbird coming back from the dead?? I'm sorry, I don't care what the cheesy dialogue about not being dead said, look at the original movie....Rainbird was D-E-A-D!! By this time, I just had to giggle insanely at each completely unbelievable plot twist which was so inaccurate continuity-wise that the whole film turned into a comedic episode. I mean, I know that they could not have the original Firestarter 1 actors in the flashbacks...but at least make the flashbacks actually fit the correct story/character history guys!!

I have to say that a lot of the Stephen King "based-on" movies (i.e. ones not directly involving Stephen) are patchy to say the least, but if you are a fan of the original, then I have to say stay WELL CLEAR of this laughable attempt to ruthlessly cash in on Mr King's original idea, you'd only be encouraging them to do more.....

Firestarter#1 was a very cool movie but this one change and ruin the whole story, cast and special effects from the fisrt movie.
"WHY?"
Because:
1- The acting was HORRIBLE! except for the girl who played Charlie.
2- The storyline was GARBAGE!
3- The story was changed a lot.
4- The special effects were TRASH! (worst than the movie SPAWN and Mortal Kombat II).

Sayonnara,adios,goodbye

Charlie grows up as an adult woman still struggling with her telekinesis powers to start things on fire, a loner who doesn't trust anyone, gets over heated before shes about to have sex, still fighting the powers that be that want to capture & do experiments on her. If this movie was an hour shorter I would say its a okay time waster, instead its a very long tv movie that doesn't really go anywhere or explore much of anything new instead of having other children with different powers go after charlie, returning charectors that make not a bit of sense since they died in the first film. I wouldn't even call this a sequel, more of a remake or reboot as it doesn't continue with the events that took place in the first film, its like they disregarded it. they changed things about what happen in the first film and some things are the same. movie needed Drew Barrymore again and a better script.

I really think that the Sci-Fi channel did a really good job on this movie, especially when you compare it to the other movies that they've done. All and all it was really interesting but it's definately one of those movies that you can't get up and walk off for a second because then you don't know what is going on anymore. I watched the movie on cable and they made this 2 hour movie last for a whole 4 hours and honestly I think that was just plan out unnecessary!!! Not to ruin it for anyone but... the ending is really disappointing and kind of predictable especially if you've watched any kind of horror movie EVER!

Ok, so I watched this movie today and it was actually better than I expected. Longer too ~2hr 45mins which is something to rival Star Wars.

I also managed to see the original movie again a couple of weeks ago (after first seeing it years and years ago). What was most noticable to me were the flashbacks to the past which were so different to what was in the original movie. Ok, I don't mean not using any of the original actors like Heather Locklear or Drew Barrymore (like they would do this kind of movie now anyway) but the way the parents died, for example, was completely different to the way it was portrayed in this movie.

It was also sad how John Rainbird had developed his own personal little army which would eventually lead to a gigantic showdown btwn Charlie and the young "gifted" boys. I did however like the young guy who was helping Charlie through the majority of the movie. It's always nice to have someone you can trust who won't just run away when they learn the truth about you - as frightening as that can be. Too bad things didn't go as he or Charlie expected in the end.

I think the girl who played Charlie did a pretty good job but it's a bit of a shame that they didn't use the bits from the first movie as the flashback sequences. However, seeing they inserted some extra footage in the flashback scenes that weren't in the original movie it's understandable that they would need to use other actors to play those roles. Of course the special effects - including sound - were much better in this movie. Not surprising since the first movie was done 18 years ago.

See it on video if you're curious to see how Charlie turns out.