Firestarter
For more than a decade, parents Andy and Vicky have been on the run, desperate to hide their daughter Charlie from a shadowy federal agency that wants to harness her unprecedented gift for creating fire into a weapon of mass destruction. Andy has taught Charlie how to defuse her power, which is triggered by anger or pain. But as Charlie turns 11, the fire becomes harder and harder to control. After an incident reveals the family's location, a mysterious operative is deployed to hunt down the family and seize Charlie once and for all. Charlie has other plans.
- Released: 2022-05-12
- Runtime: 94 minutes
- Genre: Fantasy, Thrillers
- Stars: Ryan Kiera Armstrong, Zac Efron, Sydney Lemmon, Kurtwood Smith, Michael Greyeyes, Gloria Reuben, John Beasley, Tina Jung, Hannan Younis, Gavin MacIver-Wright, Jeremy Ferdman, Jamillah Ross, Morrissa Nicole, Sheila Boyd, Darrin Maharaj, Danny Waugh, Lanette Ware, Hunter Smalley, Isaac Murray, Nicholas Vilord, Vas Saranga, Shane Marriott, Moses Nyarko, Claire Armstrong
- Director: Keith Thomas
Comments
- bevanaaron - 6 April 2024
Strangers Things meets X Men
A couple with mutant superpowers try to survive and live a normal life whilst raising a young girl who has many dangerous abilities that she seems unaware of. From telekinesis, telepathy and fire, Charlie starts having problems in school which leads to a scientific army like facility aware of her whereabouts. Her father who is played by Zac Efron and her have to remain on the run while being headhunted and learning her powers along the way. I was quite surprised in truth to see the poor reviews on here, but I haven't read the novel, and didn't know what to expect which may have helped in my favour. Although supernatural and superpower aren't my preferred choice, I thought it was quite entertaining, and the young actress as Charlie played her role brilliantly. - cjonesas - 23 November 2023
[5.6] Based on Stephen King's novel !
An average movie and super subpar relating to the original Firestarter starring Drew Barrymore. It has nothing special to offer besides good determined acting by Ryan Kiera Armstrong and to some horizons the visual and special effects.
It certainly does not deserve all the hate that reviewers surround it with. Keep your expectations low and you more than might enjoy it.- Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4.5
- Development: 6.5
- Realism: 5.5
- Entertainment: 6.5
- Acting: 6
- Filming/photography/cinematography: 6.5
- VFX: 7.5
- Music/score/sound: 6
- Depth: 6
- Logic: 2
- Flow: 5.5
- Drama/horror/sci-fi: 5.5
- Ending: 4.5.
- nexusdesolator - 13 June 2023
Watch the original!
After a year or so, i finally decided to watch this remake. I expected the usual garbage, like many other remakes and that is exactly what i got. Garbage.
It doesn't start out too bad but the longer it runs, the worse it gets and it starts to feel like as some direct to dvd b-movie. It even throws in an laughable short "training montage" near the end.
In conlusion: The acting was terrible, the dialogues were horrendous and it was kinda boring.
It only gets three stars from me because of the Carpenter score, which was absolutely fantastic and wasted on this movie.
Stay away from this one and watch the original instead, which is far more superior. - chand-suhas - 30 December 2022
Mission Free Rainbird.
A dull remake of an already dull original. Major difference is this one is written by the one sympathizing with Rainbird's character. It follows the same screenplay for the first act, making minor changes in the second act in how they meet Irv. It is the third act that is changed probably to match the current times but this is where it gets derailed badly, with everything becoming all so convenient for the little girl.
There isn't a single engaging moment in this 90 odd minutes remake. It cuts down many unnecessary stuff from the original but fills it up with equally unnecessary stuff especially that one triggering scene. The pace remains ridiculously slow and the characters mellow followed by the main villain being one tone. It is in the third act where the logic goes for a toss and the film rushes towards it's end. The changes made here doesn't yield the desired impact. - generationofswine - 3 November 2022
An Honest Review
I guess you're supposed to like this too. I mean, it totally rewrote the story and... that is what you are supposed to like today, right? You're supposed to like it when Hollywood buys an IP, makes a ton of unnecessary changes, dumbs it down, politics it up, and then releases a lack luster reboot of a film, right?
And you are supposed to like it more when they attack the fans before it was released and then blame the fans for not watching it after it fails, right?
Yeah, I'm getting tired of writing the same reviews over and over again, but that seems to be what Hollywood is doing, making the same movies and TV shows over and over again with poorer quality and the same story making the same points. - danyelpullen - 12 October 2022
ONE WORD. . . CRINGY!
Considering the advancement of the film industry since the first debut of the 1984 film, 'Firestarter,' this had the potential to be a great film but failed. The story lacked persistent direction, meaningful dialogue, and emotion. I could not relate to either of the characters because their interactions with each other were not ideal. At the end of the film, I was left with many unanswered questions. A few being the following:
1. What is the shadow government's true reason for pursuing Charlie's power? That was never really portrayed in detail, which made it hard for me to understand the dire need to capture her.
2. Although this is a short scene in the movie, its still worth noting. Why did Charlie's mother continuously try to fight her intruder brother with 2nd degree burned arms, in which she sustained from Charlie, instead of using her telekinetic power in a way that will protect her. That didn't make sense.
3. If Charlie possessed the power of pyrokinesis, telekinesis, and telepathy, why couldn't she use telekinesis to strategically subdue the female agent that held her father captive instead of burning them both to death? I guess that scene was to spark emotion in the viewer; it only sparked confusion in me.
It's like, the film writer consistently wrote each character in a corner and then introduced some random, illogical solution to get them out of it.
The child actor that portrayed Charlie was skilled and portrayed her character well. As far as the adults, I needed more thought-provoking dialogue and acting. Storyline could've also used a bit more action, thrill, and character development. Conclusively, the original Firestarter is far more superior than this one. - lesliecurtin - 2 October 2022
Did Zac Ephron Need Money?
Steven King is the master of spook. Most of his novels are well written and frightening. Some of the movie versions are quite entertaining. The original made for TV version of The Stand, all the versions of IT, Storm of the Century...but this falls short in every way. The acting is weak- I am a fan of Zac Ephron, but even he is ridiculous in this movie. The original Firestarter was campy enough to be fun. And it featured a young Drew Barrymore as the talented/afflicted little girl. The kid in this movie has one expression even when turning up the heat to set someone on fire. Find the old version somewhere and watch that.
