Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

ShangLuda Admirable film.

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

javi-y-se-acabo Stephen King might one of the most well known writers nowadays, and he usually has some kind of obsession with paranormal events, in this case affecting a young little girl and his father, who are trying to run away from some evil government forces that want to capture them to do experiments.The story is great, the two main characters are well written and are easy to connect with. And during the first half of the movie it flowed well and all. But around the half of the movie, it stops and gets slower and somehow, more boring. It still keeps the interest during some tense moments but it goes down a lot from the great start. Drew Barrymore as the little girl, Charlie was fantastic and her performance really makes you care about what could happen to her or her dad, Andy, played by David Keith.The visual effects, although they weren't perfect, were great for the not-so-high budget this movie had. The scenes with the young Drew Barrymore using her telekinetic powers were great and interesting to watch. And the atmosphere is created in part thanks to the great electronic score by Tangerine Dream.I would recommend this movie to any Stephen King, as I'm sure they would enjoy it a lot.

mike48128 Great special effects almost "save" a very stupid movie. "The Fury" made 6 years earlier is a far better concept film. Like the still-popular "X-Men" type films, how or why such genetic abnormalities and powers exist is never explained. Mutated parents=mutated kid. Blame the government! King usually mentions the original author in his forwards to avoid outright plagiarism charges. Big deal. Too much like "Carrie" which has a far better premise and delivery. Here, cute and angelic Drew Barrymore is in reality a cold-blooded killer and has repeated temper tantrums with horrific results. I am unable to have any sympathy for her character "Charlie". The fireball ending kills off 50 to 100 people or so. Mostly faceless agents, firefighters and cops, not to mention most of the principle players. I just don't like it because the special effects are too good for the weak premise. Why would she "turn herself in" to The New York Times at the end? She would certainly be jailed, killed or institutionalized for the rest of her natural life! Would Shirley Temple have made a movie like this? Fun only if you like to see miniature pyrotechnics and hysterical extras running around in fire-suits. I guess that's why it's a horror film?

Predrag The film is without a doubt a classic and watchable even today. It is thoroughly entertaining and once watched won't easily be forgotten. The gorgeous, heartbreakingly beautiful Heather Locklear met her demise early which surprised me and from then on the film just got better and better with real nasty villains after a surviving, loving father desperately trying to save his daughter Charlie, played by Drew Barrymore. Drew Barrymore captured my attention forever with her portrayal of Charlie in this film, she was brilliant and I don't think the part could have been played as well or as profoundly by anyone else.I think the movie was very well-directed, flashback scenes were edited appropriately, acting was quite good (George C Scott steals the movie with a great performance; his Rainbird character is one duplicitous villain played with perfection) although I think Drew Barrymore did also a great job portraying Charlie, the little girl with a terrifying supernatural gift and affection for her father. Special effects were awesome. I've read some criticisms about the special effects in this movie; quite frankly I have no idea why anyone would complain about the special effects in this movie unless they are expecting CGI effects. Personally, I prefer old-fashioned special effects. I am happy this movie was made with the special effects that were used back in the day.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

view_and_review Yesterday I was talking to someone about movie remakes: which movies would do well remade and which movies should never be touched. I think Firestarter would do well as a remake. Firestarter relied heavily on little Charlie Mcgee and her abilities, so with today's CGI and special effects another Firestarter would be really nice.Firestarter was about a clandestine government program in which they were giving psychotropic drugs to some participants to see their effects upon the patients. Two participants hooked up, got married and gave birth to Charlene Mcgee (Drew Barrymore). The government operation, known as "The Shop", caught wind of this and pursued the family.I remember the movie being a lot better in 1980-whatever when I first saw it. Today, the movie was OK. The acting wasn't that good and the action was very unnatural; meaning that fire and heat can do certain things and some of the things Charlie Mcgee was doing was out of the realm of possibility. Furthermore, the victims of Charlie's wrath were doing things that a person wouldn't ordinarily do in the given situation. I know Drew Barrymore was just a child but yikes! She was almost unbearable to watch her acting was so forced.I think a remake would be cool. In fact, they could have Drew Barrymore play the role of Vicky Mcgee (Heather Locklear), the mother of Charlene Mcgee. I was also thinking they could do a Firestarter 2 with Charlie being a grown-up, played by Drew Barrymore, and having a little supernatural kid of her own. Then I saw here on IMDb that a Firestarter 2 was done in 2002. That went under the radar. So that leads me back to my original idea of a Firestarter remake. It could work.