Firestarter
Firestarter 2: Rekindled
I read the novel, Firestarter, at the end of 8th
grade and watched the adapted film of the same name immediately after. I don’t remember much about the book (I’m
almost 38 now) and the only part of the movie I recall (at the time) being
faithful was the very beginning when the father and daughter were running from
government agents. Drew Barrymore plays
that daughter (the titular character) that has pyrokinesis as a result of
government experimentation just 2 years after being in E.T. (1984 for those unaware of movie releases). Stephen King is one of the few that could
take a premise so simple and make it compelling---a little girl can cause fires
with her mind (sounds like something a third grader would concoct). And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again
and again---Mr. King excels at characterizations and his characters often make
the stories as much as the stories themselves.
I don’t think I would label this film horror, it being more of a chase
movie and a thriller with elements of sci-fi (the All Movie site agrees with my
description). Now, this was never my
favorite work of his, as it is very
simple without much depth. I don’t
dislike it at all either; its simplicity itself is what makes it watchable. Given the time of release, the realistic
fires (as they all likely were real) give it a praiseworthy quality that
noticeable CGI would never be able to accomplish, particularly when her powers
really let loose at the end, enough to simultaneously be a pyromaniac’s wet
dream and a firefighter’s worst nightmare.
The sequel, Firestarter 2: Rekindled, a TV movie released 18 years
later in 2002, was more of a remake and a sequel to the remake in one film (it
was almost 3 hours, so it was certainly long enough to be 2 films!). I say it felt more like a remake because the
flashback scenes were shot with different performers at different locations
instead of using footage from the first film, yet the character names were all
the same (I know not what the reasoning was behind that). It often felt more like an X-Men-type film too, there being other
“mutant” kids created by a government agency and kept together in a
facility. Back to my mention of
realistic fires in the first film, some here may have looked passable (particularly
a flashback scene where the little girl lets loose), but many were noticeably
digital. Some of us do prefer films that
were made before digital effects were completely at our disposal. Aside from that, it isn’t the worst movie
I’ve seen, but I still say it’s an unnecessary sequel to a movie that wasn’t
exactly a masterpiece itself.
In conclusion:
If you have time, read the Stephen King novel and then watch the movie
(again or for the first time) like my 8th grade self did. If you don’t have time or don’t want to make
time, just watch the first movie. I,
personally, wouldn’t tell you to waste your time with the sequel, but I understand
how it is in wanting to complete a series; just know that you’ll lose almost 3
hours of your life you won’t get back.
At least it was only 2 films
that were made (so far) and it managed to avoid being bitten by the remake bug
for a long time; I heard Blumhouse Productions plans on remaking it. Since it was inevitable and I’m willing to
give remakes, however unnecessary, a chance (I didn’t expect to like the Child’s Play remake as much as I did),
all I can say for this one is that I hope the fires look realistic! 6/15/2020
---Sean O.
6/16/2020
No comments:
Post a Comment