Mr_Censored 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.

tribblechomper In both the book and the first movie, John Rainbird is quick-fried by Charlie...old boy is deader than Dubya's chances of re-election! The book also describes Rainbird as a Native American; correct me if I'm wrong, but neither George C. Scott (in the first movie) nor Malcolm McDowell (in the second) struck me as even trying to look Native American!!! Now, are we to believe that you can look like the guy who played Patton, get quick-cooked, and come back looking like the guy that killed Captain James T. Kirk? Are we also to believe that you can have an accent of one who hails from Wise, Virginia, get roasted, and suddenly have the accent of one raised in Leeds, England? Just how MANY Native Americans raised on the reservation have British accents, anyway?

lastsilver01-1 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.

Raekami 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.