Firestarter 2: Rekindled (2002)
Charlie McGee is a young woman with the unwanted and often uncontrollable gift of psychokinesis, lighting fires by mere thought. Charlie has been in hiding for nearly all her life from a top-secret government fringe group headed by the maniacal John Rainbird, who wants to find and use Charlie as the ultimate weapon of war.
Watch Trailer
Free Trial Channels
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
I wasn't a fan of the original movie, despite liking Drew Barrymore. However, when I saw a basic cable channel was doing this, I was interested instantly, and after starting the two part-er , with the fitting explosive title sequence, my interest just increased, so I watched it. I hadn't seen Malcolm McDowell in much yet, but Dennis Hopper I already knew very well, firstly, from Speed. The second part followed more of the tradition of Carrie and unwilling fire setting. The first part was a mixture of flashbacks: George C Scott did a good John Rainbird, but M M D, I felt was more convincing as the villainous J R.) displaying the Shop's devious agenda, plus an attempted love interest for Charlie.One thing that has stayed with me for many years, is a quote/ monologue by John Rainbird, that's listed on here, and I've tried asking about its origin, and it sounds like a paraphrased Bible verse, and if so, which one?I can't seem to access the F A Q to ask about this, any ideas? Cause it sure seems like it, quoted by a villain or not.
I am not saying Firestarter II is a bad movie, but I think the premise was poorly thought out. Whoever was in charge of writing the plot/ storyline, obviously did not do their research. Anyone who creates a sequel should try to be as accurate as they can with elements from the previous film. When they had flash backs to when she was child (from Firestarter) they did not have scenes from the previous film but instead they made new scenes that were not what happened in the first film with different actors, different scenery, and not even the same premises. My friend and I were so disappointed, it was so long and didn't make any sense after seeing the 1st film. And I have never read the book but my friend said that the 2nd film isn't accurate with the book either. I just recommend if you are going to watch Firestarter or Firestarter II, I would pick one or the other to watch. Don't watch both of them. Unless, you want to be disappointed!..
Could've been better, but could've been worse. I'd say my interest in and longtime hope for a sequel to "Firestarter" made me enjoy this film. I wasn't totally disappointed, but my biggest pet peeves were that the flashbacks didn't match up with the events of the first film (Manders Farm, Vicky and Andy's deaths) and the fact that Rainbird was supposed to be dead.Could've been a lot worse though and for a miniseries this wasn't bad. A lot of the new characters make you wonder, though, and I could see why Drew Barrymore decided not to do this miniseries. Marguerite Moreau had some big shoes to fill and she didn't do too badly imo.I wonder though if things would have been different if this had been planned as a feature-film instead of a miniseries.
I couldn't believe it! They TOTALLY REWROTE the ending of Firestarter 1, to accommodate this piece of trash!The movie would've been fine. I would've even settled for Skye McCole Bartusiak *shudders* as a stand-in for Drew. Not that she could've ever hoped in a million years to fill her shoes. But to bastardize the original movie that the fans have come to love, just cheapens this already shaky film.Marguerite Moreau was a disaster as "Charlie" McGee. Her character was hollow and as plastic as a Barbie doll. Her performance was hesitant and off the mark completely. The only thing good I have to say about this "sequel" is that the effects were believable, but that doesn't begin to redeem this horrid waste of film.So disappointing to have them rewrite the ending of 1 like that. If they hadn't done that, I might could have liked it. It gets a sorry 0.2/10 from...the Fiend :.