Login
Plot: A gifted child and her father are on the run from the a government agency responsible for her destructive abilities. In the crosshairs of a mercenary and former test subject of the agency, the duo hurtles toward an inevitable confrontation with those that altered their lives.
This film is not the first go-round for the Stephen King story about a pyrokinetic kid with a shockingly vast power range. The 80's brought us a less-than-stellar rendition starring Drew Barrymore that has gone to perplexing semi-cultishness despite its glaring faults. The novel itself is easily the most forgettable of King's surprisingly strong catalogue in his first decade as a novelist. In short, there was ample room to improve on the product but, alas, 2022's "Firestarter" proves a forgettable (and sometimes downright ludicrous feeling) endeavor.
For those wondering, the movie deviates heavily from the source material. Constant readers hoping for loyalty will be severely disappointed. But what of those seeking a film that stands on its own merit? Bad news, you'll be disappointed, too. As a King fan, I must admit that a very large part of me hoped this version would take the opportunity to elevate the material. I welcomed change with open arms. With an up and coming director at the helm, it looked promising but with a script from Scott Teems, who gave us one of the most laughably bad follow-ups in recent horror history (Halloween Kills), I should of known better. "Firestarter" proves as silly, nonsensical, and incredulous as his previous work.
Despite a solid cast, none of the dramatic aspects ever carry weight and the film floats from scene to scene with nary an impact, leaving you feeling empty even as the plot rolls on at a pace that lets nothing breathe. Dialogue does the subject matter very little service, often coming off as silly or downright lazy. Worse of all, the film never manages to achieve suspension of disbelief which renders some of the more fantastical elements fruitless, if not downright eye-rollingly silly feeling. I also can't quite pin what it is but the film feels like it exists in a world that is nothing like ours despite all outward appearances.
Aesthetically, the film looks murky, drab, and, well, ugly. Couple this with an utter lack of tension or atmosphere and you have a less than enviable formula for even the most basic visual stimuli. I will give them credit for at the very least not going over the top with the fire effects work for cheap thrills, though their actual impact mostly suffers from the listlessness of the movie. And languid this one is, for sure. It wallows in its own mediocrity for the bulk of the runtime before attempting to pull off a "darker, twist ending" that feels utterly unwarranted given the poor character work/motivations throughout. The less astute in the audience might even scratch their head in wonderment at the way things pan out and, honestly, I don't blame them! The writing is so poor that, though you intellectually comprehend what they intended, you feel somewhat slighted at how undeserved it is. The sad part is that you can see how these elements could have all been vastly improved, even refreshing, by merely fleshing out the characters. Villain John Rainbird (played by Michael Greyeyes) is robbed of screen time and presence so egregiously that his character and his motivations feel tacked on and, thus, the ending comes off in all the wrong ways. And that is not even to speak of The Shop, the gov't agency that is laying chase to the girl and her father. They just come off as complete morons.
"Firestarter" feels both like you spent ages in your seat and like it finished way too quickly for its own good. Shallow characters, bad writing, unappealing direction, and a waste of a good cast make for a brew best avoided. It could have been worse but maybe the more glaring sin is being aggressively mediocre. 2.5/10
This film is not the first go-round for the Stephen King story about a pyrokinetic kid with a shockingly vast power range. The 80's brought us a less-than-stellar rendition starring Drew Barrymore that has gone to perplexing semi-cultishness despite its glaring faults. The novel itself is easily the most forgettable of King's surprisingly strong catalogue in his first decade as a novelist. In short, there was ample room to improve on the product but, alas, 2022's "Firestarter" proves a forgettable (and sometimes downright ludicrous feeling) endeavor.
For those wondering, the movie deviates heavily from the source material. Constant readers hoping for loyalty will be severely disappointed. But what of those seeking a film that stands on its own merit? Bad news, you'll be disappointed, too. As a King fan, I must admit that a very large part of me hoped this version would take the opportunity to elevate the material. I welcomed change with open arms. With an up and coming director at the helm, it looked promising but with a script from Scott Teems, who gave us one of the most laughably bad follow-ups in recent horror history (Halloween Kills), I should of known better. "Firestarter" proves as silly, nonsensical, and incredulous as his previous work.
Despite a solid cast, none of the dramatic aspects ever carry weight and the film floats from scene to scene with nary an impact, leaving you feeling empty even as the plot rolls on at a pace that lets nothing breathe. Dialogue does the subject matter very little service, often coming off as silly or downright lazy. Worse of all, the film never manages to achieve suspension of disbelief which renders some of the more fantastical elements fruitless, if not downright eye-rollingly silly feeling. I also can't quite pin what it is but the film feels like it exists in a world that is nothing like ours despite all outward appearances.
Aesthetically, the film looks murky, drab, and, well, ugly. Couple this with an utter lack of tension or atmosphere and you have a less than enviable formula for even the most basic visual stimuli. I will give them credit for at the very least not going over the top with the fire effects work for cheap thrills, though their actual impact mostly suffers from the listlessness of the movie. And languid this one is, for sure. It wallows in its own mediocrity for the bulk of the runtime before attempting to pull off a "darker, twist ending" that feels utterly unwarranted given the poor character work/motivations throughout. The less astute in the audience might even scratch their head in wonderment at the way things pan out and, honestly, I don't blame them! The writing is so poor that, though you intellectually comprehend what they intended, you feel somewhat slighted at how undeserved it is. The sad part is that you can see how these elements could have all been vastly improved, even refreshing, by merely fleshing out the characters. Villain John Rainbird (played by Michael Greyeyes) is robbed of screen time and presence so egregiously that his character and his motivations feel tacked on and, thus, the ending comes off in all the wrong ways. And that is not even to speak of The Shop, the gov't agency that is laying chase to the girl and her father. They just come off as complete morons.
"Firestarter" feels both like you spent ages in your seat and like it finished way too quickly for its own good. Shallow characters, bad writing, unappealing direction, and a waste of a good cast make for a brew best avoided. It could have been worse but maybe the more glaring sin is being aggressively mediocre. 2.5/10
