Firestarter
IMDb RATING
4.6/10
25K
YOUR RATING
A young girl tries to understand how she mysteriously gained the power to set things on fire with her mind.A young girl tries to understand how she mysteriously gained the power to set things on fire with her mind.A young girl tries to understand how she mysteriously gained the power to set things on fire with her mind.
- Awards
- 7 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaJohn 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).
- GoofsWhen 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.
- Quotes
Vicky McGee: [to Rainbird] How can you be still helping them after everything they've done to you?
- ConnectionsFeatured in Amanda the Jedi Show: FIRESTARTER is a Trash Fire | Explained (2022)
- SoundtracksControl, 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
- How long is Firestarter?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Llamas De Venganza
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $12,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $9,739,250
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $3,827,715
- May 15, 2022
- Gross worldwide
- $15,039,250
- Runtime1 hour 34 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content