Firestarter
NOTE IMDb
4,6/10
25 k
MA NOTE
Une jeune fille essaie de comprendre comment elle a mystérieusement gagné le pouvoir de mettre le feu aux choses avec son esprit.Une jeune fille essaie de comprendre comment elle a mystérieusement gagné le pouvoir de mettre le feu aux choses avec son esprit.Une jeune fille essaie de comprendre comment elle a mystérieusement gagné le pouvoir de mettre le feu aux choses avec son esprit.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 7 nominations au total
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJohn Carpenter, who did the music for this film, was set to direct the original Firestarter (1984), but was replaced when his previous film, The Thing (1982), failed at the box office. He would instead direct another Stephen King adaptation, Christine (1983).
- GaffesWhen Charlie is in the woods trying to aim her abilities at firewood, you can see someone walking by in the background. She is clearly not alone and would've been seen.
- Citations
Vicky McGee: [to Rainbird] How can you be still helping them after everything they've done to you?
- ConnexionsFeatured in Amanda the Jedi Show: FIRESTARTER is a Trash Fire | Explained (2022)
- Bandes originalesControl, I'm Here
Written by Douglas McCarthy, Bon Harris
Performed by Nitzer Ebb
Published by Mute Song Limited by arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC
Courtesy of Geffen Records under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Firestarter?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Llamas De Venganza
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 12 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 9 739 250 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 827 715 $US
- 15 mai 2022
- Montant brut mondial
- 15 039 250 $US
- Durée1 heure 34 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant