Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Boba_Fett1138 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.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

wildchildilgwom1973 I think this movie was so, so. I'm into sci-fi movies so I gave it a 5. But I like it because I'm into movies that have people with psychic powers, in fact, I've discovered that I have 2 as well. So with that, my interest it still sparked. Although the first Firestarter was way better than this one, and this one should have picked up from where the other stopped, or been a remake of the old 1984 one. But possessing Claircognizance & the psychological form of echokinesis too, I'm well aware that psi powers are real. Plus, I love the powers each boy had, so this movie will get a half rating, a 5 like I mentioned. Nice, but could have been much better.

killee92 I rented this at a video store a while back, and after watching it, i just gasped. Having seen the original, and having been a big fan of it for many years, I think this is an excellent sequel. The story is one that you're surprised Stephen King did not write. Charlie is on the run under an assumed name, and has been tracked down by a worker from "the shop" who doesn't realize he's working for them. Now, she must make a decision, run, and keep going, or stay, and end the insanity... John Rainbird is back, and with a handy new way of killing people. There's fire, mayhem, and of course, a pyrokinetic Showdown at the end...the best sequel ever made.

Raekami This movie was indeed interested and well done, but as far as a sequel to the original movie in 1984, it was pitiful.Acting was great, but the storyline didn't even come close to the idea Stephen King gave to the movie world.Everything was different. From beginning to end. People who have read the book and seen the first movie with Drew Barrymore as Charlie will probably agree with me.I still say it's a good movie, just not a decent sequel.I say watch it, but don't go into it expecting it to be a sequel. Approach it as a whole other movie. If you have that approach in mind, you may enjoy it.Oh, and in response to a comment I read at some point about this movie.Firestarters or Pyrokinetics (if one does research) are known to unintentionally turn things into cripsy critters when they get excited or upset. So when Charlie burns the alley because of getting sexually aroused, it's not ridiculous. It's actually pretty true to the facts about pyrokinesis.And here is where I bring a close to my little comment.If you're into the supernatural and things like that, see it. If you loved the Stephen King book, and the first movie, don't look at this as it's sequel. You will be severely disappointed.