Firestarter (2022) User Reviews

Why Change The Story

[carlcasso · 4/10 · 14 May 2022]

I never understand this logic.

They decide to adapt a Stephen King Novel because it's a really good Book.

Then they take the story and completely change it.

This makes for a very poor movie in most cases.

The only Stephen King adaptations that work are those that stay true to the original story.

This has be proved time and time again and yet some Hollywood Big Shot always knows better.

They don't .

This is another massacre of a Stephen King Classic.

The worst adaptation I've ever seen was Cell but this is a close second !

Another unnecessary remake...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 13 May 2022]

Right, well this was a fully and wholly unnecessary remake of the 1984 movie of the same name.

As I stumbled upon this 2022 movie from writer Scott Teems and director Keith Thomas, I have to admit that my immediate thought was 'oh no, another unnecessary remake, just like the 2015 remake of "Poltergeist"'. Yet I opted to sit down and watch the movie, and actually give director Keith Thomas a fair chance with this 2022 version of "Firestarter".

But as I just said above, "Firestarter" was a very unnecessary remake, and if you have seen the 1984 classic with Drew Barrymore, David Keith, Heather Locklear, Martin Sheen and George C. Scott, then you can easily skip on the 2022 version, believe you me.

Sure, if you are unfamiliar with the 1984, then there is some entertainment value to the 2022 "Firestarter", no doubt about it. But for us that have seen the original, then this movie was just water under the bridge.

The 2022 movie stars Zac Efron and Ryan Kiera Armstrong. I can't fathom why they opted for Efron for this movie, but Armstrong was actually nicely cast. The movie also have some good performances from veterans such as Kurtwood Smith, John Beasley, Gloria Reuben and Michael Greyeyes.

Visually then "Firestarter" was nice, of course it was, given it is special effects and CGI made in 2022. But that doesn't alleviate the fact that "Firestarter" is a redundant movie.

My rating of this watered-down remake lands on a bland five out of ten stars.

Most Average Movie to Ever Average

[iwfcyb · 5/10 · 13 May 2022]

Lately when I watch a new movie, I ask myself "how would this movie be without it's special effects?". Too many movies get by on shiney and sparkley colors on the screen for a large part of the movie.

If you do that here, you don't even have an average movie.

What happened to Hollywood in terms of smart writing? I'd throw acting in there too, but I think it's unfair to judge actors when they have the scripts and writing they're dealing with now. I'm not even sure how they can say many of the lines with a straight face, so that's impressive I guess.

If you literally have nothing else to do, this would be ok to have on in the background.

Almost A Clinic In How NOT To Adapt A Stephen King Novel

[zkonedog · 2/10 · 15 May 2022]

Many adaptations of Stephen King novels exist--on film or television--that aren't very good. It is quite frankly just really, really difficult to translate masterful textual stories onto the big screen. But even amidst that mediocrity, Firestarter might be the worst effort I've ever beheld.

For a very basic overview, Firestarter tells the story of young Charlie McGee (Ryan Kiera Armstrong), a girl imbued with pyro-kinetic mental abilities--in other words, the ability to create/control fire. Hidden away from society by a father (Zac Efron) & mother (Sydney Lemmon) who perpetuated her condition as part of a collegiate experiment, they are eventually found out and pursued by a shadowy government agency and mercenary Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) in particular.

Skipping right to the point, 2022's Firestarter intentionally undercuts everything that makes the novel retain any sort of iconic status. Some examples:

-The Lot Six experiment flashbacks (with college-age Mr. & Mrs. McGee) are some of the most compelling material in the book. Here? Relegated to opening-credit background filler.

-The tension between whether or not Charlie should train herself to control her special abilities? Used in a couple of 30-second snippets and then discarded entirely.

-One of the book's hallmarks was the separation (over a long period of time) of Charlie and her beloved father, which sets up a perfect slow-burn to the explosive climax. That isn't even attempted here--instead, all that material is laughable condensed into the film's final 15-20 minutes.

I am very rarely tempted to stoop to 1-star level on any entertainment property, but this movie came dangerously close. The only reason I even bumped it up to 2-stars? Because Efron was perfectly cast and would have been perfect for his role, had not the entire thing around him been a flame-out (pardon the pun).

In short, Firestarter is simply a hollowed-out vehicle for utilizing the King name (and, oddly enough, a John Carpenter-and-son score) to get a few eyeballs. I hate being that crass, but this film deserves it. Not one ounce of care was put into the crafting of interesting characters or plot pacing.

Pretty bad when a rehashed John Carpenter score is the best thing about it.

[Otkon · 3/10 · 13 May 2022]

I grew up on the Drew Barrymore version. And it was okay for its time. I still remember Heather Locklear and the ironing board. I remember the creepy nature of George C. Scott. And the barn climax.

This movie I can barely recall and I just finished it. Oh yeah, I lost interest at the cat part with Zac Efron saying "good job"....what the actual huh?!

I think this movie just petered out. It's unnecessary, generic, shallow and adds nothing at all.

Watch a yule log on youtube instead.

An insult to the original

[STEVE24BUS · 3/10 · 13 May 2022]

Very poor, poor effects, poor story, cheesy, so disappointed with this. If you are going to remake a cult classic, then have a look at what made it a classic to start. This is just a lifeless boring sham. If you loved the original film, give this a miss, if you haven't seen the original, then it might just about keep you awake.

A bad adaptation that nobody asked for. Stephen King doesn't deserve this.

[leanpiga · 1/10 · 13 May 2022]

An adaptation that will simply be forgotten sooner rather than later. If you've never read the original book on which this movie is loosely based, it's still a relatively ok movie. But there is the book and the magnificent adaptation of the 80s, so this is just a botch. Too many things from the book never happened in this movie, too many memorable scenes from the book and even from the later 80's adaptation here never happened.

They have the perfect example of how to make a great adaptation with the 1984 movie, and they got carried away and ended up doing this "thing". A big disappointment.

Good not great

[FeastMode · 6/10 · 13 May 2022]

This is a mostly enjoyable movie that keeps you invested. I like the premise and the musical score. Unfortunately the pacing is poor with some scenes where the movie comes to a halt. And it builds up to a payoff that is fine but not fully satisfying. I compare it to the much better Brightburn (8 stars) which is so much darker with a significantly more satisfying payoff.

I had a good time with Firestarter and Zac Efron continues to prove that he belongs. But there isn't enough payoff, substance, depth or mental stimulation to warrant multiple viewings. (1 viewing, opening Thursday 5/12/2022)

Solid film and cast

[oboyle22 · 9/10 · 20 February 2023]

I don't understand any lesser reviews of this movie. This story works. They family dynamic makes sense. Hiding the potential powers they way the did makes sense and just the overall feel of the move was quality. The acting was great. Ryan Kiera Armstrong was fantastic in this role the way a little girl can play with emotions and really get the audience to feel her confusion of what is happening. Zach Efron played the protective father role to the right beat. The temperament of the movie made me feel for the family and the tough times they went through and what they will go through in the future. The ending is fantastic to me and right on point with how I like. Give it your time.

Enjoyable Scifi-Thriller

[GeorgeI4280 · 6/10 · 15 May 2022]

Enjoyable popcorn movie, great performances, my biggest issue with it is the lack of character development for both Zac Efron character the Charlie & the "Villain" hunting them. It at times felt it was just trying to lead to the next fire scene. One issue I think people have is this Firestarter is not really a horror movie but more of a scifi-super hero type esque movie. There was alot of creative freedom one could've had and made a better movie.

I enjoyed it but the ending leaves you a little unsatisfied almost cliffhanger but not exactly. While I haven't seen the original I'm reviewing this film as a stand alone and taking at face value. Fans of the original may have stronger opinions.

Pointless

[masonsaul · 4/10 · 23 May 2022]

Firestarter is a film that feels cheap, looks ugly and manages to be rushed yet still feel boring and needlessly slow. It doesn't really succeed at any genre either, with only a few cheap jump scares as a horror and it definitely fails as a superhero movie.

Ryan Kiera Armstrong does her best with weak material and almost makes it work. It's nice to see Zac Efron in a more dramatic role once again but he's also let down by such bland and lifeless stuff. However, Kurtwood Smith's brief appearance is great and threatens to give the film some actual energy.

Thankfully it is mercifully short and the music by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davis is fantastic, easily the best part of the film. It's infinitely better than anything actually happening and tricks you into thinking something actually interesting might happen.

A Dumpster Fire

[bakergarrett · 3/10 · 13 May 2022]

Firstarter Is far to much of slog to recommended. I never thought a movie where a girl blasts fire and runs from the government would be so boring. I really did enjoy John Carpenter's score.

That is unfortunately all I liked. The effects while shiny and new but don't have to pop they need to be truley riveting and seem real and the acting from all the other actors was awful. The diolouge is also very poor

The worst part about Firestarter is how boring to watch it is You don't really care what's going on and that is a crime for a movie.

Didn't Start the Fire

[Tweetienator · 3/10 · 20 May 2022]

Firestarter 2022 is not a total fail but nothing remarkable or at least entertaining - forced at gunpoint to decide, I would prefer to watch again the version from 1984 starring Drew Barrymore. No, I am not a great fan of that one either but it is the more entertaining one of both movies. The new version just rolls on and I watched the whole affair rather indifferently. The technical aspects (acting, cam, production) are okay, but if you know the old version I do not know why one should watch the new one. On the horror-o-meter this one is also a very low one. Final word: redundant.

Others Have Said it Better, but ... a Couple of Quick Points

[rebeltaz-18705 · 1/10 · 3 July 2022]

So, there are other reviews here that do a better job critiquing this train wreck than I can, but there are a couple of points no one else has/will make, so I have to...

For starters, every person of authority in this film - the head of DSI; the teachers; the principal; cops; literally everyone except for the prey (i.e. The two "main characters") - is either black and/or a woman. Then, there is one scene where Charlie accidentally kills a stray cat. When they bury it, they say a prayer in the hopes that "she, or he, or they" find peace. Really? A freaking CAT is now non-binary? If you are looking for a movie to check boxes, you are going to love this.

If you want a movie that is entertaining, interesting, engaging or just plain not boring... (not that I would recommend any Stephen King work in this post 2016 era but... ) go watch the original with Drew Barrymore.

Finally - and I feel like a broken record but - why can hollywood not light a freaking scene to save their lives!? In the school, they literally show the ceilings and the fluorescent lights, but not a single one is lit! Everywhere else, on the rare occasion when there are lights in use, they might as well be nightlights for all the illumination that they give. Not to mention the fact that many scenes are back lit by bright outdoor lighting, with no fill lighting whatsoever, so the actors faces are completely in the dark. In one scene, the father is in his practice with a patient he is "hypnotizing" to get over smoking. Not a single light is on in the entire office. The only light is what little bit is streaming in from the front windows. I just wish someone would send a box of lightbulbs to hollywood. But then again, maybe if they'd put out better movies, they could afford lighting...

I knew this was going to be bad, but I gave it a chance. It wasn't AS bad as I expected, but it wasn't good by any stretch of the imagination.

Big Mistake BH.

[yusufpiskin · 4/10 · 15 May 2022]

The biggest mistake of Blumhouse Productions was to dismiss Fatih Akin, whom they considered as the director of this project. It could have been a very good movie, but the resulting production turned out to be a decent movie from TV movies.

There is Some Sizzle, But As A Whole It Fizzles

[rgkarim · 6/10 · 13 May 2022]

LIKES:

The Special Effects: This film is not the high tech, overbudgeted, big bang movie superhero movies have made famous. However, the movie accomplishes the task of bringing the fire to life in terms of special effects that are both computer and what looks like traditional pyrotechnics. Fire is the theme of the movie, hence the title, but I give props for being able to bring the elements of the heat to the silver screen. Smoldering air currents, steam, boiling, and of course the raging flames await to be used in the darker means of King's imagination, and it looks beautiful with the special techniques used.

The Dialogue At Times: Feeling like something from a book, the screen adaptation accomplishes hitting that dialogue we like in a drama/thriller like Firestarter. Several parts are poetic, King's writing coming out in full force as they do their best to tame the beast of the "special feeling" inside deep inside them. Other parts may not be as fluid or artistic, but have an emotional depth to them, which comes out quite well from the performance. It feels like one of those character driven plots he does so well, and I felt it was one of the stronger aspects of the movie, and delivers the emotional moments quite well.

The Acting... at least on some characters: Firestarter has some heroes in this film picking up the load, carrying the characters and movie pretty far as it tries to fill the 90 minutes. Efron is not my favorite, but has times where he really gets the role of the caring father with a heavy past quite well. This role helped diminish the High School Musical vibes big time, and it was nice to see him expand back into the thriller genre for another round. Sydney Lemmon had probably the best performance of the night for me, a great strong role of someone taking on the weight of the world and doing her best to handle the fall out of a decision made in the past. She's collected, cool, but shows just enough vice to bring out other elements of her emotions leading to a balanced performance I wanted more of and hope to see again. As for newcomer Ryan Kiera Armstrong, the young girl has potential, showing off her ability to play an adult and child in this dance of insane storytelling. Her ability to cry and react to the horrors of her new power are certainly well-honed, but the third act of the film really shows her promise as a horror actress in the future when she gets more experience.

The Opening: The part that felt the most King to me, those opening credits are the editing work that horror fans love to dive into for their opening moments. It's got weird sound effects, horror theme texts, that filtered footage to pull you into tapes of the past. Seeing the plot set up and hearing an astounding delivery by the head was haunting and painted potential for the chills to come. It's one of my favorite horror openings in a while, but sadly it does not hold across the film in regards to the creeps it could have brought.

The Runtime/Pace: Given the shortcuts they took in this adaptation, the 90 minute run time is a bit of a blessing, as it minimizes how much you have to sit through this telling. The fast pace keeps things from becoming too drawn out, and gets to the "heat" of the moment much quicker to get that sizzling end you are looking to immerse yourself into watching.

The Music: Hands down the biggest strength of the film, Firestarter has a great supporting soundtrack to help add that shiver down your spine. The composers from the Halloween series have a hand in this score, and it works so well to bring out that disturbing background noise that gets into your head and unsettles you. As mentioned earlier, it makes for a great opener, but throughout the movie this unsettling score is the biggest horror draw of the night for this film. Nice work on this one guys.

DISLIKES:

Crosses One Of My Lines: I have not read the book, but there is a component of animal torture in this film that holds little need or class given all the other rewrites they did. Crossing this line and to this extent is something I'm not privy of seeing, so sensitive constitutions beware and prepare for this gut punching scene.

The Acting On Another Degree: For those that don't care about my line, the acting suffers from either budget or direction choices in this film for me. Many characters that are supporting don't quite feel committed to the role, or struggle to bring that emotion to the full potential they could. The big bad antagonist is one of those roles, sometimes accomplishing the malice, but often struggling to sell the lines. Others barely say anything, and when they do, don't come out as awesome as they could have accomplished had they pushed those boundaries a bit further. Only John Beasley as Irv accomplished the task, getting adequate screentime to pull his shots out and be a worthy supporting characters.

The Action: I know, it's more drama and horror than it is action, but as I said, be careful how much you twist the movie if you are going to try. Firestarter has action that at times is awesome, but sadly is missing something for me in terms of bringing it all together. While realistic, the choreography is bland, and the strategy is very simplistic as if taking the simple road was the best route. Other times, there is that sweet justice in revenge, but yet, the stakes don't feel like a winner to me and left me kind of bored in my seat. Thus, if the action was going to be done, a little more of the theatrics and planning could go a long way.

More Time With Supporting Characters: Part of what I think limited the acting was how limited the characters felt in this movie. Firestarter really has about two characters getting most of the time, while the others who hold many keys to the tale are simplified. Again, so much potential in a King story, but the approach and plans on where to release it got in the way to make a cheaper version that did not utilize the characters as well as they could. Back to the drawing board on this one boys, because balance and strategizing could have saved it.

Not Scary: I don't believe this particular movie was made for being a deeper horror film, like at all. However, there was again potential in this movie that did not quite come out in the full effects I think they wanted. Firestarter felt more drama and Sci-Fi than the genre King is famous for, and those going in for that jump scare, disturbing concept, will be disappointed outside of a few moments. Maybe those who are very prone might like the toned down scares and still ump, but for seasoned pros, this won't even phase you.

The Story/Ending: This has to be the worst part of the movie for me, in that the film does not feel like a King story adaptation. Look at It, the Shining, and Dr. Sleep, movies that managed to take the time and effort to mimic the time and effort to match King's brand of storytelling. It feels more like the book coming to life and accomplishes so much in keeping thins alive in the grand scheme of things. However, this time, the movie feels more of a knock-off and highlights of the story, only getting just enough to pass for a story, but lacking the full emersion these books are known for holding. That character development, that build up a tale's revelation, and the exciting climax moments, all lost to the quick and easy loadout they wanted. And it really comes to life at the end of the film, where a quick runtime made the final ordeal a breeze to accomplish, with again little connection or sizzle.

The Verdict:

Overall, Firestarter accomplishes a loose feel and quick display of the King Universe and the haunts you can play in. It's got a quick pace, solid opening, decent acting, and visuals to pain the world in that foreboding light the author is famous for having in his works. And while these elements and the chilling music are golden, there is also other elements that don't quite succeed in making this the best King adaptation, despite the improvement in technology. Secondary characters are not used as well, the scary/suspenseful elements are missing, and a fast pace get in the way of the full effect this movie could have had like others of his works. Still, the benefit of streaming on Peacock should help plenty of people see it, which I hate to say is the venue to watch this movie in if you want to maximize your budge.

My scores are:

Drama/Horror/Sci-Fi: 5.5- 6.0 Movie Overall: 5.0.

Don't bother

[lauriib · 1/10 · 14 May 2022]

I don't understand why they bother to make a movie from a Stephen King book if they're going to radically change the story. This seems to be the trend ever since The Dark Tower.

Enjoyable twist on a classic

[brosello · 8/10 · 8 February 2023]

Unlike many leaving a review, I really enjoyed this remake. Yes, they made some changes, but I thought they made the experience all the better. The acting was good and the cast did a decent job. Zac Efron's character did. I think that a lot of people watched this film looking for any minor detail in order to hate it. When it comes to remakes, you have to expect it to be different from the original and just enjoy the movie for what it is - a remake.

In short, watch this movie with the family, but be prepared to see a remake of a classic with a twist. If you watch it without comparing it to the original too much, you will enjoy this movie.

Where was Charlie McGee when I needed her last weekend when I was camping and lost my matches to start the firewood?

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 6/10 · 2 June 2022]

Writer Scott Teems sure did a terrible job on Stephen King's novel with his convoluted and uninspiring screenplay. Even newb director Keith Thomas made matters worse with the sub-par directing. Casting and performances were great, although a waste of talent for such an underwhelming production, and it's a shame, because had Teems invited a seasoned writer to look over his screenplay and make adjustments, this could've easily been much better. Even the normally comfortable 94 min runtime felt much longer with the dragged out scenes and pacing. The best part was Carpenters score at the end. It's a generous 6/10 from me.

Fails to Ignite

[southdavid · 5/10 · 15 May 2022]

I don't think I've ever seen the Drew Barrymore version of this Stephen King story, nor have I read the book, so I honestly can't tell you if this lived up to either of those. What I can say is that, despite some interesting flourishes, mostly this is a pedestrian adventure and I'm not sure who the target audience is.

Charlie McGee (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) is a young girl with a supernatural power, when upset, she can generate an intense and destructive fire that she is impervious too. An incident at her school exposes her to a government agency that would like to bring her in for experimentation, one that has a dark history of dealing with people with powers. As her mother Vicky (Sydney Lemmon) and father Andy (Zac Efron) try to get her to safety, another powered individual Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) is on their trail.

Blumhouse Studios has quite the history of successfully soft rebooting horror films now and their success with "The Invisible Man" is plastered all over the advertising for this one, unfortunately it's not telling anything like as interesting or relevant of a story. Dangerous power in the (relatively) unstable hands of a child is a familiar plot but here it's crowbarred into a low rent revenge action film, if anything - desperately lacking in scares, or invention, to make the experience worthwhile.

I did like the 80's aesthetic. Though it didn't extend to the actual setting, the typeface and style of the credit sequences are retro inspired and interesting, and there's a John (and Cody) Carpenter provided score, which is full of the sort of synthetic sounds that he's know for. I also can't actively criticise the performances of anyone involved, though by the same token, nobody particularly stands out. The visual effects are fine, if a bit toned down for what they might have been.

It's just all in service of a story that's not very interesting. I know it's not a horror story in the way some other King narratives are, but it's desperately lacking in any sort of thrills.

A pure piece of crap. Avoid it.

[Filmreader · 1/10 · 22 May 2022]

A pure piece of crap. Just pure boring garbage.

Thankfully I saw it online and I was able to jump forward in many scenes.

Follow please my advice and save 90 minutes from your life.

AVOID IT !

Horrible B movie

[pensacolacomputer · 2/10 · 14 May 2022]

I love horror movies, I watch them all the time. This is the worst horror movie I've seen this year. Zac Efron should be ashamed of himself, they must've paid him very well for this garbage. This seems like a B movie. Like something similar to a Lifetime movie, except those movies are better than this, so I guess that makes this a C or D movie.

This is what happens though when you focus on other things rather than a good story.

2/10 really bad.

The worst movies I have seen in 2022. Unecessary remake

[Vivekmaru45 · 1/10 · 18 May 2022]

Having seen the original in the '80s, I was eagerly anticipating this one to be even better. But to my utter amazement and disgust, this one is even worse than the original.

All the charm from the original movie is gone. Replaced with bland storytelling, a hopeless plot and bad acting. All the special effects are mostly C. G. I. The lead actress hams her way through the entire film unlike the realistic acting of the original actress in the 1984 film. The 1984 film had a plot light years better than this one and it makes me wonder what was the point of making this?

I would not even recommend this as being worth your time.

More faithful they said...

[OnlyAtJMart · 4/10 · 18 June 2022]

I should have known better than to be the least bit excited for this. This was bad. The original, was one of my favorite movies when I was young. I was hoping they improved on that. I don't know why. With the exception of Dune (as that's all that comes to mind right now) remakes have traditionally been bad, overall. I don't know why I thought this would be any different. They did very little marketing before it was out. Which is usually an indication that they don't even have faith in their own movie. I should have known better.

More interested in a sequel than any part of this film

[siderite · 6/10 · 18 May 2022]

The original Firestarter was a mixed bag: some good actors in some stupid roles, some bad child actors in the main role, scary situations with people burning alive, mediocre special effects (for that age), some clunky dialogue. This remake is following that pattern as well, only it feels dumber.

Why? First of all because it's 40 years later and all they could improve on it are the special effects. Then there is the plot. In the original the girl was caught and taught by scientists to use her powers. Here she just steals a bicycle and gets to the top secret facility all by herself. The special effects in the first movie were silly, but you saw burning people and you felt the horror and the devastation. In this one they didn't take one risk. The deaths are always off screen. It feels really really gutless and cheap. Drew Barrymore was 9, which proved difficult as acting chops went, but creating effective emotion with a tiny little child who could burn the world. In this, the main actress is 12 and her character is a mess. For example, at the end, she burns everybody because her father made her do it?! Gutless indeed. You can't mess with ... THE RULES. Children can't do intentional harm, come on! The characters are cardboard and even so take more screen time than they should.

The only good thing to come out of this is the change to the ending. Instead of burning the older man strangely in love with her to death, for killing her mother and at least partially causing the death of her father, she teams up with him at the end. And I kind of like Michael Greyeyes, he is talented. In the hands of a more gutsy and competent team, this could turn into a nice sequel, maybe even a "cinematic universe" akin to the Scanners films from the 90s. Although I am pretty sure they plan some sort of YA streaming series instead.

Bottom line: 40 years later, snowflakes are afraid of fire. Compared to the original, the movie is less scary, lacking any kind of commitment or taking of risks and feels both lacking material and too long. It was in dire need of good editing. The only actors/characters to shine even a little are bad guys. If not for the change of ending, I would have given this 5/10.