The small town of Haven becomes a hot-bed of inventions all run by a strange green power device. The whole town is digging something up in the woods, and only an alcoholic poet can discover... See full summary »
Carrie White is a lonely and painfully shy teenage girl with telekinetic powers who is slowly pushed to the edge of insanity by frequent bullying from both her classmates and her domineering, religious mother.
Stephen King's take on the masterpiece series by Lars von Trier. A great disaster threatens a haunted hospital in Lewiston, Maine, built on the site of a Civil War-era mill fire in which many children died.
Charlie McGee is a young woman with the unwanted and often uncontrollable gift of pyrokinesis, lighting fires by mere thought. Charlie has been in hiding for nearly all her life from a top-secret government fringe group headed by the maniacal John Rainbird, who wants to find and use Charlie as the ultimate weapon of war. Vincent is a young private investigator unwittingly sent to look for Charlie, and evenutally tries to help her escape from Rainbird, who has formed a group of young boys from other research projects -- each with different special abilities -- in a plot to take over the world.Written by
Is this movie even an official sequel? I ask so because this movie totally ignores events from the previous movie and simply blatantly even alters things.
This movie is filled with some flashbacks, that however don't make any sense when you have already seen the first movie. It completely ignores some fact from the first movie as well as actual moments that we did see happening. Who knows, perhaps this is all more faithful to the actual Stephen King novel but just don't call your movie "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" when you are taking a totally different approach with the story and completely ignore the stuff from the earlier 1984 movie.
"Firestarter" had a pretty much closed ending. All of the bad guys died and Charlie McGee eventually ended up well. But guess what, apparently the bad guy didn't die at all. He just altered. He now suddenly looks like Malcolm McDowell with a half burned face, instead of George C. Scott, who played the villain John Rainbird in the first movie. But if you have seen the first movie you know that it's pretty much a solid fact that there is no way the character could still be alive, or at least could definitely not look as 'well' as Malcolm McDowell did. It reminded me of the way they brought back the Durant character in all of the Darkman sequels. Couldn't they simply come up with a fresh new villain?
But this is the foremost problem with this movie; it's a sequel without any imagination or good ideas. Here you have a movie in which your main character has the ability to put everything on fire with her telekinetic powers, as well as a bunch of other persons with X-Men like powers. Plenty of awesome ingredients and potential to play around with you would imaging but strangely enough the only thing they could come up with was letting the main character accidentally put stuff on fire every time she was getting too excited during sex. So great, she can never have an orgasm. An excellent subject for a science-fiction/thriller, you guys!
They really didn't come up with anything good or exciting, which is really the most disappointing thing about this movie and its story. But I still don't really know either what the main plot was supposed to be all about. Why does John Rainbird want to create super humans? And why does he need Charlie McGee for that so badly? What makes her so exceptional? Even though the movie is about 3 hours long (it can also be aired as a mini-series) nothing is really ever explained well enough, which also makes this movie a real unsatisfying one by the end, as well as just a pointless sequel and movie in general.
Also really don't understand why Dennis Hopper showed up in this. He plays a real boring character, that also really doesn't add anything to the story and could easily had been left out. It also would had been nice if they actually cast someone who somewhat looked like Drew Barrymore, who played the main lead in the movie but instead they casted brunette Marguerite Moreau. The acting in this movie was not all that bad though, which probably prevented it from ever becoming a truly bad and ridicules one.
No, I really don't want to sound like I completely hated it. It's definitely watchable all, in the long run. You probably have seen way worse than this movie but a better story should had really made this movie at least somewhat remotely exciting and original to watch.
You're really way better off watching just and only the first movie, which wasn't even that great of a movie in the first place either.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this