MovieChat Forums > Firestarter: Rekindled (2002) Discussion > "Firestarter 2: Rekindled ?"

"Firestarter 2: Rekindled ?"

posted 20 years ago by re_zuleta
23 replies | jump to latest

Anyone in here care to comment your opinion on what could've been done better in the lack-luster TV Sequel-Series-Pilot, "Firestarter 2: Rekindled?"

Personally, if they could've managed to hire Drew Barrymore back in her original role .... then this film might've at least had a descent chance at getting a better screen presence ... cause quite honestly I didn't buy that performance from that "Mighty Ducks" girl.

Second, the idea or story treatment could've been spiced up a bit ....they could've come up with a better story for the sequel......

[–] serinatia 20 years ago

I don't know... it would probably still have sucked.

I'd suggest that they should have ironed out all plotholes and actually read the book. John Rainbird was killed in the first, so I don't know how he survived in the second. There are a number of points like that.

Also, it looks like a rip-off of X-Men 2, and not a good one. The powers could have done with some work.

[–] dragongrrrllll 20 years ago

I doubt anything could have saved this long, boring sequel. It shouldn't have been made. The young lady who played Charlie is very beautiful, but I wasn't impressed with her acting--of course, that might not have been her fault as the role and the script were really poor quality. Give her a better part and she might well shine in it.

The one decent performance was from the little girl who played Charlie as a child, all the more impressive because she had so little to work with. Hopper was clearly in an unnecessary role that was written in only to have his name in the credits, he served no purpose at all. And Malcolm McDowell really should have known better.

Let's hope all the actors move on to better projects and that the producers find something else to do with their time.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] iluvdanbyrd 20 years ago

I didn't really like it...I mean, its kind of a big leap from an innocent little girl who most people pity to a woman who lights fires when she's turned on. I mean, come on. And the whole Charlie kissing John Rainbird...that was...well, I have no words. But I agree, Marguerite Moreau is probably a really good actress who was given a very lousy character to act as. The 6 kids were also really good actors. In fact, the only reason I rented the movie to begin with was because Dan Byrd was in it (he played Paul, the kind of badass kid), and I'm like his #1 fan lol. Still, I think this movie was pretty lame. Oh well. And yes, it probably would have been better with Drew Barrymore too.

~Dan Byrd's #1 Fan, KT

"Did you hear about the hippie vampire? He's ghoul, man...real ghoul." -Dan Byrd as Mark Petrie

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Moonshadow1968 20 years ago

I think that if they filmmakers had actually paid attention to the book, and the original movie, which stayed pretty true to the book, the sequel would have been so much better.
They ignored so much and rewrote so much more...And the fact that they brought back Rainbird - WHAT THE HELL were they thinking? He was dead! She roasted him like a marshmallow in the fire...they should have left him dead. They also should have at least tried to either reuse footage from the original film, or duplicate the scenes better...
Charlie's apartment at the shop complex, according to the book, was a comfortably furnished room...or suite of rooms, not a prison-esque room.
The scene at the beginning where the soldiers burst into the house didn't even happen in the book. Andy came home and found his wife stuffed in a closet with her fingernails torn out. He eventually rescued Charlie from the agents trying to kidnap her...
The scene where Charlie burned Rainbird - that happened in a BARN - it even says so in the book...though according to the book, the barn scene happened in the daytime, not the night.
They screwed so much up with this sequel, it was awful!
Then there's the plot of this story all leading up one thing that I'm still trying to figure out the point behind the attack on the town - like why did Charlie incinerate the friggin town? What was the point of that? It made no sense.
The first part of the story was interesting - with the tracking down of all the remaining participants of the Lot 6 experiment. But, like i said, the whole thing leading up to the attack on the town was stupid - just an excuse to show off Charlie's powers.
Then we have Rainbird's New Mutants or whatever they are...that's aside from the fact that Rainbird's supposed to be dead, not to mention the fact that he was Native American, NOT BRITISH! Sigh...I think I'll just quit here....
--
Tejas,
Robin
Desert Moon Art
http://www.desertmoonart.com

[–] bmalone135 17 years ago

I agree with you completely. Also, they seem to have forgotten that she didn't go in hiding. She went to the New York times in the book and original movie, to tell the story of all that she and her dad went through. She would not be in hiding. They should not have taken Firestarter and made this crappy sequal that doesn't even fit with the orginal story of Firestarter at all. They did the same thing with Carrie, which was one of the best movies I've ever seen(the original, not the remake)

[–] Hitsusatsu_y2k 15 years ago

She went to the 'Rolling Stone' mag in the book.
But I do agree with you about using the basic plot from 'Scanners' for a sequal that could have been much better

[–] Lokisgodhi 10 years ago

Morons, you need to pay better attention. She did say she went to the press. Want part of they didn't believe her didn't you understand?

[–] lferrigon-1 20 years ago

What did he want with Charlie? I never got that and I have watched it twice.

I like Marguerite Moreau. She is a good actress.

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

I think they should have given her a better excuse to blow up the town at the end. Why blow up the innocent? In the first movie, she was killing bad guys at the end. In the second, she doesn't care what she kills? Doesn't make sense.

[–] deathsblackraven 19 years ago

ive never seen the first but the way they bring back john in the second one is that they say that when she burned him after he killed her dad that that didnt kill him but it did manage to royaly screw up one side of his body well hope that cleared something up

Define irony a bunch of idiots dancing around a plain to a song made famous by a band that died in a plain crash

[–] lajabless 17 years ago

>>Define irony a bunch of idiots dancing around a plain to a song made famous by a band that died in a plain crash

Your reply:

<<

I love this quote, BUT I wanted to point out to you that the use of the word plain in your quote is incorrect. Plain, spelled this way means plain as in, boring. The plane you're looking for is..plane..meaning flying aircraft. Sorry, I'm an editor for a website and when I see these things I get sort of a mild case of OCD about them. Irks me to see misuse of or incorrect spelling of a word.

Also to respond to your response (I know it's an old post but...) as the original poster said, they took liberties and they weren't good ones. Regardless of if they explained why..it was a terrible remake.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lferrigon-1 19 years ago

Yes that bothered me as well.

[–] swaters210 18 years ago

I'm saden that I hear this movie is junk. I'm also saden that I just found about this movie because I had the idea for a sequel a long time ago. What can i say it looked better in my mind because drew barrymore was in it.

[–] Kaldyne 18 years ago

The movie stunk. We all lost 90 minutes of our lives we can NEVER get back.

[–] carol-cuttress 18 years ago

Hiya there zuleta
I totally agree- Drew Barrymore should've been in the sequel- but I suspect she may have declined- due to the crap storyline- she would've known if it was worth it in the first place. I could've thought up a totally better story in the first place. What a total insult to the original movie and the story!
-

[–] buffy_rulz 17 years ago

I first saw this a few years ago. I watched X-Men 3 and then I watched this again. Now when I see Charlie burning up the town at the end all I can think of is Dark Phoenix lol. That is why I like this film lol.

[–] sk-112 17 years ago

I LOVE Marguerite Moreau BECAUSE WHEN I SAW HER IN QUEEN OF THE DAMNED I THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS EXCELLENT.

[–] evil_eldar_girl 16 years ago

Drew Barrymore probably wouldn't have wanted to reprise the role for a variety of reasons-
- It was a made for TV movie.
- Her fee in itself would have probably exceeded the budget.
- Drew rarely appears in movies that she isn't the producer of.
- Many former child stars who've enjoyed career success are reluctant to reprise a role they had so many years ago.

[–] britt_mcgee 16 years ago

I don't know if I'ld really call it a sequel, more like a remake set in the future. Considering the fact the remake has little to nothing to do with the original, outside of character names and the general concept of the original story. I mean, Charlie a cold hearted horny adult, Rainbird alive... and British as well as the creator of Lot 6 instead of a henchman of The Shop. Little of this movie makes much since as a sequel. It's more like a crappy remake of a classic book and movie.

&quot;Firestarter 2: Rekindled ?&quot;

"Firestarter 2: Rekindled ?"