Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but long...
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Losing time
Review: 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).
Rating: 
Summary: could be better
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Should not be compared to the original.
Review: Many people are comparing this to the original and because of that are giving it bad reviews. This should not be. If you are looking for complete continuity of the original, then your looking in the wrong place. Instead, view this a a completely seperate movie. It's also important to realize that this was a mini series, not a regular movie, so it's long. Yes, it differs in many aspects from the original, but if you can look past that, its a very good movie/mini series.
Rating:
Summary: I wondered what would happen if they did a remake....
Review: Of this movie?? One reason why I gave this movie three stars instead of five is because I actually saw the original "Firestarter" with Drew Barrymore in the title role, it's just more of the same with someone else in the title role as the firestarter, only ten years later, supposedly. Too bad what she did to hide from this government agency didn't work like she hoped it would. In the end, "Big Brother" always finds people who hide. Oh well, ten years of peace is better than no peace at all. I hated Malcolm McDowell's character because on the one hand he put his "prize creation" aka Charlie McGee on a pedestal, telling the boys at the compound stories about her, then using what he knew about her to coerce her into using her gift of fire. He had this sick fantasy about Charlie was to compansate for what he couldn't have. John certainly didn't love her like a man should, but he was jealous of what she and her male helper had. You will have to watch the movie to see what I mean. What really bothered me about the whole scene at the government compound was that the boys McDowell's character was rearing with their "education" was bad because they were 'little monsters' in a sense. A good parental figure would make sure the child understands compassion and consequences. The boys were not bad. They were just misguided. I don't like that he refuses to use females for his test subjects. I think just about anyone can become unpredictable when they know something is up. At least Charlie's parents made sure she knew what consequences were. That scene where her father smacked her because she didn't want to stop the fire in the barn showed he cared about her and the people that may have been in there. I am glad she didn't fall for any of McDowell's character's tricks. I wouldn't recommend this movie if you are looking for something different. The original movie is better.
Rating:
Summary: Not that bad...
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Better than I thought...
Review: Okay, this movie was made by the Sci-Fi channel so I'm not going to be so hard on them for not having the best script/special effects/story. I'm just going to focus more on the entertainment factor. Yes, I was a huge Firestarter fan. I was a bit disappointed in the changes from the past during the flashback pieces... but the main story was still there. But this is the biggest reason I did not give them five stars... diverting from the real story. However, I did enjoy the entertainment value. The idea of more children with unique abilities was fun... I wish they had shown more of these children. A glimpse at Charlie's life as she was all grown up was interesting, as well as other characters from the Lot 6 experiment. The only thing I did not like was the ending... but this is the story of Charlie so it should have been expected. I'll leave it at that so I don't blow the ending for anybody. But it somewhat disappointed me. No, this wasn't as good as the original. Of course, Stephen King wrote it and didn't have a hand in this, so of course it is better. I wasn't expecting much and was prepared to turn it off it if didn't catch my attention well. But I was entertained and I watched it to the end. Overalll, I would say, "Job well done, Sci-Fi Channel." Would I recommend it? Maybe... if your expectations are high (don't expect a Terminator 2 type of sequel) then I would suggest skipping out on this one. But if you are into a night (this is a long movie) of cheap entertainment, pick this up!
Rating:
Summary: Better than I thought...
Review: Okay, this movie was made by the Sci-Fi channel so I'm not going to be so hard on them for not having the best script/special effects/story. I'm just going to focus more on the entertainment factor. Yes, I was a huge Firestarter fan. I was a bit disappointed in the changes from the past during the flashback pieces... but the main story was still there. But this is the biggest reason I did not give them five stars... diverting from the real story. However, I did enjoy the entertainment value. The idea of more children with unique abilities was fun... I wish they had shown more of these children. A glimpse at Charlie's life as she was all grown up was interesting, as well as other characters from the Lot 6 experiment. The only thing I did not like was the ending... but this is the story of Charlie so it should have been expected. I'll leave it at that so I don't blow the ending for anybody. But it somewhat disappointed me. No, this wasn't as good as the original. Of course, Stephen King wrote it and didn't have a hand in this, so of course it is better. I wasn't expecting much and was prepared to turn it off it if didn't catch my attention well. But I was entertained and I watched it to the end. Overalll, I would say, "Job well done, Sci-Fi Channel." Would I recommend it? Maybe... if your expectations are high (don't expect a Terminator 2 type of sequel) then I would suggest skipping out on this one. But if you are into a night (this is a long movie) of cheap entertainment, pick this up!
Rating:
Summary: Messes up a great book and a fair movie.
Review: The Drew version was fair...it really tried to adapt the novel. Rainbird, despite being played by a non-Indian actor, managed to capture the essence of the character. Charlie was decently played too. However, it was somewhat ... cheesy. Somehow everything was there from the book it just had a feeling that was.... cheesy. But, this movie is worse. This movie messes up with the book's stories in major ways. I'm not talking fanboy stuff, like "Hugh Jackman's hair was an inch shorter than Wolverine", no this is like "Hugh Jackman had a dress and a ponytail and ate junkfood all day long". Instead of the climatic barn showdown from the book, we have a rather bland version. Rainbird (skinny, non-indian and two full eyes) jabs a needle into her dad's ear ear and Charlie lights him on fire. "You didn't see me die, Charlie...you saw me get burned."
Yes, Rainbird, we saw you die. Your flesh was scorched off the bone, according to Mr. King. So unless you're a charred skeleton then its not possible. There is plenty more errors, but this is what gets me: Charlie has been turned into a kinky girl who has sex with men on top of cars. Whatever happened to King's angelic girl? Better yet, which happened to the very first King novel I read and enjoyed?
| 
