Firestarter
Long, long ago, in a galaxy far away, I used to read Stephen King books as they came out. So, I know I read this book, way back when but I absolutely do not remember a thing about it. There was also a movie a long, long time ago and I know I watched that, but I don’t remember a thing. That’s my introduction saying, I’m fairly well a blank slate for this remake of a very old Stephen King horror story.
Except, I don’t even remember if it was supposed to be a horror story. Basically, it’s the gubmint messing with people who have extra sensory powers like telekinesis (moving things with your mind) or what King called the “push”, or the ability to make people do things with the power of your mind. The gubmint gives certain test subjects enhancing drugs, then the people procreate. One couple has a little girl called Charlie, who inherits both her parents’ abilities, in spades, and her own ability to make fires with her mind. The gubmint tries to get her back, chaos ensues.
This is a rare King book with a little girl as the main character. His books are almost entirely about the power of the twelve year old boy and his male mentor. Charlie is actually an interesting character in that she is basically a blank slate. Her parents, who know she’s wanted by the gubmint for their own nefarious reasons, raise her as a loved, protected person with good morals. At least that’s what I got from this movie because I truly don’t remember the original work beyond girl who starts fires and bad forces want to use her.
Both of her parents continue to refer to her powers as “the bad thing”, which bugged me quite a bit. It felt like normal parents referring to their child’s greater intelligence as a bad thing, when she is just superior to them in one regard. Of course that will fix in a child’s mind the fact that they are “not right” and that the completely normal thing they’re able to do should be repressed and hated. I’m not even a mom and I know that’s a bad thing to teach a child.
This, of course, leaves the child unable to deal with the crap when it hits the rotator. The actor playing the child does a good job in this movie. All the actors do a good job, if not anything to brag about. The music, written by the iconic John Carpenter and possibly his son, I didn’t bother to look it up, is also good without being great, as is the special effects, lighting, cinematography and all that.
My biggest takeaway was that the movie didn’t have any kind of Stephen King feel. There was no discernible “horror”, just the feeling the bad guys were going to get theirs in the end. Charlie grows up quick and in the end begins to understand her powers, and is taken in by an unexpected ally. This is a movie that really, really needs a sequel. I would watch that, mostly out of sheer curiosity.
If you’re looking for a revenge movie, you may enjoy this, but there is no real horror involved. I can’t speak to how well this movie depicts the original text. I have a feeling the first movie, oh so long ago, may have been more representative of King’s story. It’s not a bad film, but it’s no better than meh, I feel. If you’re looking for something that won’t challenge you, give it a whirl.
Triggers: death of a cat
Available on: Netflix, amazon, Paramount+, YouTube, Fandango at Home
CFR: In Addition
Nope. Nope. Nopey nope. I won’t watch an animal get hurt. Nopey nope.
Never been interested in this one. Probably because it seems to me to have too much child abuse/neglect in it. Oh well. The poster is very cool.
Chick Flicking Reviews 