Waste of time

Thanks for the memories!

Don't listen to the negative reviews

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

I was really disappointed with the boring start to the movie to the boring end of it too. I was expecting a better cast too, like the original cast from the first movie. Despite loving Drew Barrymore's acting in the first FireStarrer I thought I would give this a shot. The storyline made NO sense, going back to the first movie and not exactly being accurate left me very annoyed as it could have been done heaps better. The special effects are pitiful, cheap and nasty just like the acting. 2/10- one of the worst "Stephen King inspired" movies. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew his novel would be such a terrible film.

I was never a fan of the first Firestarter (1984). I thought it was highly melodramatic, Drew Barrymore was a whiny brat and the only good side was the amazing soundtrack by Tangerine Dream. I highly doubt I'll enjoy the supposed 2015-16 remake, either. However, I loved King's Firestarter novel, and thought that maybe this would be a different experience...Man, I should've known better when I found it in a bargain bin at the local Dollar Store.Technically Rekindled was a TV miniseries, incredibly and unnecessarily long but somehow it was fit onto a DVD. It features the now college-aged Charlie as she researches her pyrokinetic abilities. Meanwhile an old enemy whom she assumed was dead long ago has come back, with a whole new gang of kids, and each kid has a "wild talent" all their own.The actress who played Charlie herself was pretty pathetic, and her character was obviously designed to appeal to pervy guys. There is one pointless scene where she has sex on the roof of a random guy's car (no idea who the guy is, is she a prostitute?) and making love makes her want to go burn down some buildings. What the...? Also, as a kid the nickname Charlie (Charlene) might be "cute" but you'd think that as an adult she would no longer be going by Charlie.The annoyingly bad CGI, obvious green screen, sex comments that took away from the story, lousy soundtrack and generally bad acting built up to the point where by the end of the movie I had already made plans for the bonfire. I was very lucky to be burning the DVD's of that god-awful Hunger Games series crud the same day, so Firestarter 2 really "rekindled" the burning movie heap of bad ones in my backyard. I would've sold it except I doubt anyone would've bought it.Firestarter was good enough on its own in 1984, the sequel here and the supposed upcoming remake is all just garbage and a cliché attempt to interest people with the plot of psychic powers. I don't recommend watching this, and if you decide to, well, I wish you the best of luck in not having a breakdown right in front of your television.

Originally airing as a Sci-Fi Channel original movie/mini-series, "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" is the only sequel to "Firestarter," a little horror movie from 1984 that was based on a Stephen King novel and starred a very young Drew Barrymore as the title character. Arriving 18 years later and stretched out to nearly three hours, "Rekindled," re-writes history, re-making the previous film through flashbacks as it goes along. To say it takes liberties with its source material would be an understatement.Since this is 2002, and Drew Barrymore has better things to do, the role of Charlie McGee has been re-casted with Marguerite Moreau, who will certainly ring a bell to fans of "The Mighty Ducks." Malcolm McDowell of "A Clockwork Orange" fame steps into the shoes of George C. Scott and looks even less Native American as John Rainbird, the manipulative megalomaniacal psychopath who exploited Charlie in the past and who, like Sam Loomis in "Halloween," can't shake his past obsessions, no matter what cost it comes at. Aside from spending the first half catching you up in case you didn't see the first movie (and offending you by assuming you are stupid if you have), "Rekindled" finds there to be more survivors of the "Lot 6" program, which used human beings to test mind-expanding drugs, which had an adverse effect on their psychological well-being. It's the job of Vincent Sforza (Danny Nucci) to track these people down so they can receive the rewards of a class action lawsuit (a.k.a. a brutal and swift cover-up death) and once he realizes something is awry, helps Charlie once again escape the clutches of Rainbird and his cronies, as well as fending off a group of genetically engineered "Super-Kids," who serve merely as plot devices and filler. Also, there's Dennis Hopper as a tortured psychic who was obviously only written into the script so that his name could appear in the credits, possibly lending credibility to this sequel.All these little sub-plots do well enough to pad out the length of the "film," but for the most part, it follows the same "fox on the run" formula of the first. The flashbacks which serve to remake the first movie tend to bog things down and, in the end, are unnecessary and unfortunate. The fact of the matter is, for this movie to exist, nothing in the first movie needed to be re-written. The flashbacks were unnecessary because not only did they not add to the narrative at hand, but also because anyone watching a TV-movie/sequel should have at least seen the first movie or read the book. Thankfully, though, for a TV-movie, it's actually quite entertaining, despite some cheesy moments and obvious padding. There's a good hour that probably could have been cut from the flick, and it would have been all the better for it. On the upside, Marguerite Moreau is a nice replacement for Barrymore, even if she looks and acts nothing like her. Malcolm McDowell hams it up a bit, but at least gets into his role enough so that you believe he is truly insane. Dennis Hopper shows up, reads his lines and drives off, but his presence is still noteworthy. For a fan of the original "Firestarter" who doesn't mind seeing it violated just a bit, "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" serves as a nice way to kill a rainy afternoon. View it with a grain of salt, and you will find that despite its limitations and short-comings, it's actually not all that bad for a TV-movie. Truth be told, if they had billed the movie simply as "Firestarter: Rekindled," dropping the "2," the results would have been less offensive and it would be suitable as more of a remake than it is a sequel. Think of it as an overblown piece of fan-fiction on the small-screen, and it has its merits.

OK lets get one thing straight. The is a really huge stretch for the entertainment industry. It is one thing for a show to talk about or make reference to something that was made from a really good book but it is a completely different matter when the book is still in print and clearly not used.One of the first things that I have a serious problem with is the fact that John Rainbird is NOT nor has he every been a man of science. He is an man that kills for a living. Come on people am I the only one that caught that. He did not what to use Charlie for world domination, that was just stupid. The reason that Charlie had to die according to John was that she held a power that had to be taken to the other side with him when he killed her.Secondly there was the issue of the fact that EVERYONE who has seen the original movie will tell you that John Rainbird only had one eye. What did he grow a new on over year when he was being bent on taking over the world? We know this because from the book and from the narrative in the movie there is a mention that he was in Vietnam and a claymore took half of his face.Thirdly, the reason that Charlie was being sought after was because she was the product of the marriage of 2 Lot Six participants. The ONLY lot six participants that survived the testing. It was the dosage that her mother and father received that gave her the ability to start the fires in the first place. To take that and say that now we have a way of putting these gifts in to other children is so outrageous that it makes a joke of the entire production. It would have stayed truer to the story that someone, anyone from Washington DC rebuilt the project and it was discovered that she was still alive. Just that alone is enough material to have a completely true to the story remake of fire starter on a television series.Finally and this where the biggest heartache lies, Charlie never had any physical reaction to her ability. When she started fires she was only fighting the complex that her parents instilled in her about starting the fires. Other then that the whole idea that she needed to get away or get something in her to control what she had was just a crock.On a 1 to 10 scale I give this movie a waste of time.