It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Firestarter 2 (2002) *** (out of 4) Charlie (Marguerite Moreau) is now all grown up and in hiding when an agent (Danny Nucci) finally tracks her down. The agents quickly connects with the troubled girl and gets her to agree to go back to the lab with him but Dr. (Malcolm McDowell) is still evil and wanting to use her for her power. I was rather nervous walking into this nearly three hour sequel especially since I didn't care too much for the first film but I was pleasantly surprised at how much this kept me caught up in the story. However, let's get it straight that this here is in no way, shape or form a sequel. Events from the first movie are shown here but they're being done by different actors and even different things happen here. Many major plot points from the first film are changed and altered here so this is basically just a remake but with much more detail. I thought the story itself was very well done here and it's certainly explained much better than in the first film. The thoughts behind the experiment are better detailed and I thought the film also did a very good job at showing the bad side of being Charlie and on the run her entire life. I really thought the personal drama between the characters were believable and it certainly helped keep you invested in such a long movie. The performances were also extremely good with Moreau doing a nice job in the main role. She was very believable in the part and certainly made you care about what happened to her. McDowell plays crazy without a problem and makes for a great villain and we've also got Dennis Hopper playing a psychic and we all know that he always adds some good entertainment value. Nucci was also good and managed to have some nice chemistry with Moreau. The film still has some pretty big flaws including the horrid CGI effects and especially all of the stuff dealing with fire. The ending is also rather weak and should have been done in a much better way. With that said, for the most part this is a good little film and certainly much better than the original. Just don't go into it expecting a sequel.

it's been a little while since i've seen this sequel to the 1984 original.however,i do remember that i really liked the girl who played the grown up version of Charlie.i thought she did well in the role.there's a lot more excitement in this one,i believe.it's much higher energy.again,the acting is serviceable,though the plot seems sillier than it did in the first movie.also,clocking in at nearly 3 hours running time is a real negative here.i think the story could have been told in much less time than that.they certainly could have shaved off an hour.but as sequels go(other than the long running time)this movie is not half bad.for me,Fire Starter 2:Rekindled is a 5.5/10

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.

This movie was indeed interested and well done, but as far as a sequel to the original movie in 1984, it was pitiful.Acting was great, but the storyline didn't even come close to the idea Stephen King gave to the movie world.Everything was different. From beginning to end. People who have read the book and seen the first movie with Drew Barrymore as Charlie will probably agree with me.I still say it's a good movie, just not a decent sequel.I say watch it, but don't go into it expecting it to be a sequel. Approach it as a whole other movie. If you have that approach in mind, you may enjoy it.Oh, and in response to a comment I read at some point about this movie.Firestarters or Pyrokinetics (if one does research) are known to unintentionally turn things into cripsy critters when they get excited or upset. So when Charlie burns the alley because of getting sexually aroused, it's not ridiculous. It's actually pretty true to the facts about pyrokinesis.And here is where I bring a close to my little comment.If you're into the supernatural and things like that, see it. If you loved the Stephen King book, and the first movie, don't look at this as it's sequel. You will be severely disappointed.