Of the versions that have been produced to me this was the best & the scariest by far. Efron is great as Charlie’s father Andy as is Lemmon as Charlie’s mom Victoria, but by far is Ryan Kiera Armstrong as Charlie. Smith & Reuben are good in their respective roles and Greyeyes adds more dimension to the character of Rainbird.

A soulless, flat and achingly by the numbers adaptation that wholly fails to convey the wonderful Stephen King novel. Even the special effects aren't special. A cast iron dud of a movie. Just watch the far superior 1984 adaptation (which itself wasn't stellar) or even better, just read the excellent book. We still await a definitive adaptation.

This is one of the weaker books from Steven King as it's not really a horror. It's well made, good acting BUT the story just is not that interesting.

I see King, I give it a chance, but as with every constant media output, streaming down story after story, some of them might just be subpar, below expectations. Firestarter might work great as a book, 4/5 average on Goodreads, but this remake of the original movie adaptation just misses the mark. The story follows the McGees, a family of seemingly normal people that hides a secret: their dad is awesomely fit Zac Efron, which makes for an unusual dad bod in real life. Oh, and their daughter Charlie can set things on fire with her mind. Not only she has to cope with this superpower, but she also catches a lot of attention from Ever-Caring Gov Support. Jumping straight into the main problem of this movie explains why I skipped reviewing character, setting, plot: the movie is too fast paced. With 94 minutes of runtime, everything happens at a speed that leaves no room for depth, culminating in a shallow story with little emotional connection. Grief is absent, even though it seems like it should have played a major role on the Charlie's change; she does this training on one segment and sort of master her skills in like, 30 minutes story-wise, that's the extent of how fast this movie feels. Without this emotional connection to the characters, the movie runs uninteresting for its extension, like that one coworker that is your buddy inside the office, but you never met outside work. In the end, you just turn off the 온라인카지노추천 and that is it.

In my opinion, it wasn't that bad that people say but I have seen many better movies.

A dumb premise that leads to bloodless series of embarrassingly bad non-events.

An utter yawn of a movie. Cannot possibly think of why this was made.

I had high hopes for this remake of a classic, but the sound effects were ridiculously over the top, the acting from many of the cast hard to believe and I think probably the only thing I actually enjoyed was the music from John Carpenter and his son. I watched 37 minutes and had to turn it off. If one hasn't read the book (or seen the original movie), I believe it would be incredibly difficult to understand a lot of the references. Gloria Reuben's performance was the most believable for me.

One of the best King adaptations out there.

As someone who seemed to miss the original 'Firestarter' back in 84, I found the 2022 remake on a streaming service and I therefore can't really compare the two. However, this version is perfectly serviceable within the landscape of modern horror films, despite not really being a stand out which will break new ground. Zac Efron is a father of a child with supernatural powers (his daughter can summon fire when she gets angry, in case you didn't guess). Efron is desperate to protect his daughter from those who want to exploit her dangerous powers and the actor does a decent job here, delivering a solid performance, but it's clear that the role doesn't demand much from him. He's come a long way from his High School Musical days and a more dramatic script would certainly be within his capabilities. The real focus of the film is, of course, on the young girl, Charlie, played by Ryan Kiera Armstrong. Her portrayal is a bit hit or miss. At times, she's actually pretty watchable, but at other moments, her performance can feel a little forced or inconsistent. Given that Charlie's emotional journey is central to the story, this unevenness does impact the film's overall effectiveness. The actual story is nothing that new, i.e. following a child with superpowers as she struggles to control them while being hunted by nefarious forces. I guess if that's all you're looking for then you'll find a certain degree of entertainment here, even if it doesn’t bring much new to the table. The film’s pacing is generally fine, though it can feel a bit slow in places, and the tension doesn’t always build as effectively as it could. I'm now tempted to seek out the original as it would be interesting to compare this version to the source material, especially considering how Stephen King's work has been adapted differently across various decades. While this 2022 remake is far from bad, it also doesn't stand out in the crowded field of recent horror releases. It's a watchable film that delivers some thrills, but it’s unlikely to leave a lasting impression.

This movie was a misfire Hollywood please stop rebooting movies....

The book "Firestarter" by Stephen King is great! The 1984 movie was well made and kept true to the book. This 2022 remake is the worst remake i've ever seen. If you want to experience the actual work of Stephen King go read the book.

This was so boring I couldn't even get to the 12 minute mark before quitting. Just people sitting in chairs taking very slowly.

This movie was a dumpsterfire it could have been a good time but instead it was boring

I liked this movie. It started a bit slow then it became increasingly engaging. Zac Efro was good in this and so were Ryan Kiera Armstrong and Michael Greyeyes. I hope there's a sequel.

Not a bad remake of a movie that was not very good in the 1st place. Overall not much goes most of the movie. The climax is nothing special pretty predictable overall .

You might as well watch the also terrible but better one from the 1900s

Had potential to be good but flopped instead.

Doesn’t really give you enough depth to be a really good film. Maybe it’s because the source material wasn’t up to much. Not read the book so can’t say.

This was awful like really bad