Charlie

This movie is about, of course, a girl who can start fires with her mind. Through a series of flashbacks we see how she came about these powers and why the government is now pursuing her. This movie features a few stars such as the title character Drew Barrymore, David Keith, George C. Scott, and Martin Sheen. Keith plays Barrymore's dad and he also has special abilities mainly consisting of a strange ability to control a persons mind. Through the first half of the film we see these two chased by this organization called "the shop" which is actually referred too in a couple of other King novels (never read this one though). The second half has them captured by this organization and performing tests on Barrymore's character. For the most part this movie is very slow moving and a bit confusing. I have watched it a few times and I still am unsure of George C Scott's motivations. You see Charlie (Barrymore) use her powers here and there, but nothing to grand, that is until the end where the movie really ends with a bang.

Stephen King's writing is starting to grow on me, at first I wasn't so keen, now there are many things like his depiction of fear and his attention to detail that make me appreciate his writing more. As far as adaptations of his work go, Firestarter is not awful, but it is not great either.

There are better movies based on King's work(The Shawshank Redemption, Misery, Stand By Me), but there are also worse(Sleepwalkers, TommyKnockers and DreamCatcher).

My problems with this adaptation start with that I think Firestarter is too rushed. Consequently the effects lack finesse- though they are nowhere near as bad as the ones for The Langoliers-, the storytelling is clunky and the characterisations(excepting Rainbird) awkward.

On the other hand, the story is still very interesting, and Firestarter does have some good photography and directing. What really redeemed the adaptation was the cast. Drew Barrymore shows a lot of talent from an early age and Martin Sheen while deserving of more screen time is effective too. Best of all is fine actor George C.Scott in a brilliant performance as Rainbird, sometimes sympathetic but often terrifying sometimes in sudden shifts.

Overall, I don't think Firestarter is either bad or good, in fact my reaction was rather "meh". 6/10 Bethany Cox

Firestarter is the story of Charlie (Drew Barrymore at age 8) and Andy, her dad (David Keith), and the people who are trying to imprison, control and/or kill them (Martin Sheen, George C. Scott, Moses Gunn, and others). Charlie is a mutant. Her father and mother were part of an experiment on mutagenic substances performed on college students in the 1960s by The Shop. The experiment gave Andy the ability to control others minds, but the mutation, apparently dormant in his wife, was passed on through the sex chromosome to his daughter. Charlie, quite plainly, can combust virtually anything with her mind.

Though all the acting in this film is good, Barrymore and Scott are truly awesome. Scott plays a brilliant sociopath, and can go from a kindly old Viet Nam vet to a ruthless killer with one quick change of facial expression. And Barrymore (at the age of 8, if you didn't pick up on that the first time I said it) gives her character a fully believable person-hood with great depth.

Like the novel, this is more of a horror-thriller than classic King ghost stories - like The Shining. It is also less classic King horror - like Carrie. And its also not a great drama like Dolores Claiborne, Misery and Stand By Me. Though it fits into roughly the same category as Hearts in Atlantis, it is not a literary as this much later King work and the characters are not as well developed. Although the book could be said to be one of King's earlier experiments with what would become a formula for his lesser works, King's writing is so lucid, and his characters are so interesting, believable and nicely examined, that his 'B fiction' is still somewhat above the average best-seller. The film follows the book very closely, and, like the book, is sort of a prototype for the more formulaic films in the King portfolio.

The directing is very good, the cinematography (especially the effects) is excellent, and the film is, as a whole entertaining. But, for those who have not read the book, the film will likely come off as 'no big deal.' As with many of the more formulaic King-derived films, this is best seen as a cathartic summary of the original work (like Dreamcatchers, Running Man, The Stand, Maximum Overdrive, The Mangler and others).

The main problem with "Firestarter" is it tries to adapt the story of the book faithfully, at the expense of character development. It is impossible to cram a five hundred page book into one two hour movie and make it work favourably. For much of the picture, the pacing feels awkward and rushed, more interested in moving the plot along than developing the characters.

Brian De Palma's "Carrie" followed the story of the book just as closely. But seeing as "Carrie" is less than half the length of "Firestarter", it made for a much more comfortable adaptation.

Stanley Kubrick had the right idea with "the Shining". The book was about the same length as "Firestarter", and as a result the plot was butchered heavily to make it work for the screen. Stephen King (and much of his loyal fanbase) have misgivings about Kubrick's adaptation, a lot of people who love film (and recognise it as the different medium that it is) regard it as a masterpiece.

Mark Lester's "Firestarter" isn't all bad however. George C. Scott's John Rainbird is inspired casting, and probably the best thing this film has going for it. The scene at the Manders' farm, and the conclusion at the Shop's headquarters make for enjoyable viewing and are handled capably.

It's a shame, that as a whole, the film doesn't work too well. I'd definitely like to see this re-adapted into another film or a mini-series. The book isn't exactly King's best, but it has a lot of potential for another screen outing. 5/10

Here is another screen adaptation of a Stephen King literary work that has fallen short of it's potential to truly entertain. To read his work and then wait in high anticipation of the cinematic interpretation, only to be disappointed after viewing, can cause one to remain biased with screen adaptations. Though I was disappointed with the overall production of this movie, there are a few strong points I'd like to mention. I was thoroughly impressed with Drew Barrymore's acting ability at eight years of age. She was a natural and carried this movie. Because of the depth in which she played her character, I will give this movie a six- I give her acting a ten. A weaker actress would have made this movie more difficult to watch. Charlie Sheen and George C. Scott helped the movie along too. Otherwise the movie lacked the direction and mood that Stephen King usually generates in his books.