Search - Firestarter Movie Collection on DVD

Sharon F. (Shar) from AVON PARK, FL
Reviewed on 5/26/2023...

Great older movie with a very young Drew Barrymore in the lead. Can't wait to see the new one.

1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.

K. K. (GAMER)
Reviewed on 7/11/2022...

Firestarter - Strong powerful fiery plotline, only to fizzle. A must for Drew Barrymore fans though!

1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.

Me And Charlie McGee...

Bindy Sue Frønkünschtein | under the rubble | 03/12/2005

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Drew Barrymore is not bad at all as little Charlene "Charlie" Mcgee. She's afflicted with pyrokenesis (starting fires w/ her mind) handed down to her by her mum Vicky (Heather Lockleer) and dad Andy (David Keith), who were both injected with an experimental serum by a secret government organization called "The Shop". Now Charlie is on the run with dad, trying to escape the clutches of the nefarious shop operatives who've already killed mum! Unfortunately, an assassin named Rainbird (George C. Scott) wants Charlie for his own demented reasons. Along with Capt. Hollister (Martin Sheen), Rainbird plans on exploiting Charlie's powers, then killing her with a quick blow to the head! He's a sick one! As much as I like Drew Barrymore in this, FIRESTARTER has it's lame moments of pure cheese, like when Mum's oven mits burst into flames, whatta riot! Or when flaming mannequins (shop agents) fly through trees at Charlie's instigation during the blazing climax! Still, it's not a terrible movie, just not a classic. Then, there's FIRESTARTER 2: REKINDLED, a nearly 3 hour sequel that suffers from a bloated storyline that could have easily been squeezed into an hour! Charlie's all grown up now, and suffering from nightmares from her past, as well as that pesky burning thing. She is unaware that Rainbird (Now played by Malcolm McDowell) is alive (?!) and still infatuated with her. He's also raised up a small army of kids with various psychic abilities (sort of a bratty version of Village Of The Damned). These kids are being trained as weapons of course, and will ultimately face Charlie in an all-too-whimpy showdown. Dennis Hopper (Night Tide, Blue Velvet) is also in this as Richardson, a clairvoyant with the personality of day-old oatmeal. REKINDLED has far more smoke than fire, and seems almost endless to sit through! It's more or less a freebie tacked on to the infinitely superior original. So, grab some marshmallows and roast 'em by the TV screen! Enjoy..."

Nice Being Able To See Both Films

Orion E. Hubbard | Portland, Oregon United States | 12/29/2006

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Let's, see; how to explain this? If you are a real Stephen King fan, you might not like either version of Firestarter as neither version is like the book, but I've read the book which is quite long and if everything that was in the book was put into a movie, that movie would be about six hours long. However the original 1984 version of Firestarter comes close to the book in many ways, but its problem is that the movie could have been just a little longer and filled in a bit more of the background.

The new movie does that, but it's a form of revisionist history. Things happen in the 2nd movie differently from the original movie, and from the book as well. For the purist, this is not quite a good thing. I sat through the movie saying "now that didn't happen like that," that didn't happen that way," and so on, comparing the differences and not quite enjoying the film. The problem is, the second film is not all that enjoyable as the star of this film is no longer the cute Drew Barrymore nor are the other actors up to the quality and caliber of the ones in the first movie.

Somebody who has never read the book (which is one of King's better books) or seen the first movie, might enjoy Firestarter 2, which is more a strange combination of the Scanners and X-Men movies than a Stephen King piece. As science fiction stories go, it's okay; and despite what the DVD cover says, this is a science fiction story and not anything supernatural. It's not bad, but it could have been so much better. I give it three stars. Look at this film first, then compare it with the original film; then you decide which is the better film."

Somebody needs to shoot the producer

Na Derro Cartwright | 07/10/2006

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Now I have seen my share fo good movies and read some really good books and I have to say that of all the books and all the movies, Stephen Kings orignal Firestarter has to be one of my absolute favorites. I have read this story enough to know it backwards and forward. It is a story that I have a invested a lot of time viewing and reviewing. So when I learned that there was going to be a sequel I had really high expectations.

In the sequel we are first introduced to how Charlie lost her mother. This is something that avid Firestarter followers will see as a studio seen pitch to add drama and effect to a story that is needs none. Not to give the story away for fan but it can be safe to say that the writers, and the directors didnt bother to research the book or the storyline enough to know how this happened out in the original. Had that time for the research been done it would have probably been accepted. Secondly we are introduced to a group of survivors of the original experiment. This is something that is a direct contridiction of the original book, becuase there were only 2 survivors and they married, raised a child, and then killed. Other then that there were no Lot Six survivors, in the movie. In the book however there were 2, on man that was kept in a small room on an island compound, and of course Charlie McGee.

Finally and this is what I found the most distrubing, the charater played by George C. Scott, (John Rainbird) has been re introduced in to the story, He is no longed the cold calculated killer that burned to death in the barn from the last story, now he is a scientest. Not just any scientest he is someone that is some how part of the Lot Six program. A program that was has not spawned several children that have "special" abilities.

According to the book and to the orignal movie, the reason that they wanted Charlie in the first place was because she was the only person that had any abilities as a result of the Lot 6 Experiment that didnt tax the body physically. That was why they wanted her to begin with. She was supposed to be used as a weapon. A weapon.

If you are going to re make a movie at least read the original. Case in point "Back to the Future.""