Firestarter

Good special effects and a great cast make this film above-average, as Stephen King adaptations go (well, it's certainly better than "Maximum Overdrive"). The story may be a bit predictable, partly because King had visited similar territory before ("Carrie", anyone?), but you have to admire the way the film puts you into the action right from the start, omitting any slow introductions, and George C.Scott is such a strong, perverse and eccentric villain that you can't help watching him. (**1/2)

Andrew McGee (David Keith) is on the run with his daughter Charlie (Drew Barrymore) from a secret government agency called 'The Shop'. He has the power of suggestion. She sets fires. Back in college, he was in Dr. Joseph Wanless (Freddie Jones)'s experiment with Vicky Tomlinson (Heather Locklear) taking an injection called Lot 6. They start communicating telepathically. Everybody hallucinates and they are the only two survivors. Later they got married and had Charlie. After they killed Vicky and tried to kidnap Charlie, Andrew goes on the run. Dr. Wanless wants to kill off the family fearing the powers of the little girl. Captain Hollister (Martin Sheen) scoffs at the possibilities with the support of John Rainbird (George C. Scott). They want to experiment and use her as a weapon.

This is such a nicely made sci-fi giving child star Drew Barrymore the staring role. It doesn't have the big flash and the sizzle. It's mostly a road movie. There are some nice fire work. The explosions could be more impressive. The flashbacks work well. The acting is generally very good with some terrific actors. Drew does an exceptional job as a child actor. It probably could use more shoot outs and high speed chases. However it works very well without them.

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.

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).

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.