“Firestarter” will get a remake later this month, and watching the original “Firestarter” (1984) it’s clear it needs one. As adapted by Stanley Mann, the ’84 film is too faithful to Stephen King’s excellent 1980 novel, to the point that nothing seems genuine and organic.
Drawing on Drew
Famously, “Firestarter” stars Drew Barrymore, who has the remarkable knack for looking the same throughout her life. Charlie McGee looks like a miniature version of how the actress now looks, and that’s appropriate because she’s asked to grow up too fast.
In some ways, “Firestarter” is a spiritual successor to 1982’s “E.T.”; there’s even a scene with hazmat-suit-clad men. But Barrymore isn’t so precocious here. This is a stiffer, less natural performance under the direction of Mark L. Lester.
“Firestarter” (1984)
Director: Mark L. Lester
Writer: Stanley Mann
Stars: Drew Barrymore, David Keith, George C. Scott
David Keith is much better-looking than the shlub Andy McGee of the book. And as I expected from this mostly daylit film – which has a proto-“X-Files” story but none of the vibe – Andy is not so troubled by his headaches as in the novel. He gets nosebleeds when using his mind-warp powers.
In a remarkably lazy piece of makeup work, George C. Scott plays John Rainbird without any prosthetics showing his facial scarring from the Vietnam War. He sometimes wears an unneeded eyepatch for the sake of theoretically scaring Charlie.
This is absurd because she has seen people burned alive at her own pyrokinetic glare, which is illustrated by close-ups of her eyes, in the same style as “Carrie.”
Nothing sparks
The fieriest performance comes from Martin Sheen as The Shop’s leader, but it’s out of sync with the three low-key lead performances. Sheen aggressively tries to sell Captain Hollister’s enthusiasm over Charlie’s powers.
“Firestarter’s” pyrotechnics and action are somewhere between cartoony and cinematic – basic wide shots showing the practical effects and stunts.
Sometimes Mann’s faithful approach makes for confusing viewing. Rainbird kills a random guy in his introduction to the audience. This is a great scene under King’s pen but it lacks meaning for a filmgoer who hasn’t read the book. Although fascinating in the book, Rainbird’s obsession with killing Charlie in order to see the life leave her eyes is odd and underdeveloped on the screen.
Barrymore and Keith give warm turns as daughter and father, but no other relationships or interactions spark. There’s no tension to the McGee’s evasion of The Shop’s agents nor to their time in captivity in underground cells that resemble swank apartments.
Even though the plot is identical, everything is so much more vibrant in the book. King’s “Firestarter” glows thanks to its details. Mann should have supplied more kindling. Perhaps the 2022 version will reignite the flame.
On Fridays, RFMC reviews a Stephen King book, adaptation or related work. Click here to visit our Stephen King Zone.
Agreed. While Keith and Barrymore are warm here I find his performance as well as the men he blinded to be lacking. I think Drew gives a good performance though. As does Sheen but there’s a lot of bizarre acting and direction throughout. And like you said no pizazz to the writing or style. I see a lot of people are really defensive and nostalgic over it…going as far as to call it one of the “greatest Stephen King adaptions, along side Shawshank Redemption…” I think maybe they haven’t seen it in awhile….I am excited for the new adaption and I hope critics and audiences give it a chance. I didn’t feel that warmly about the 2013 version of Carrie, because I love the 1976 one…and there were already multiple versions. I’m more happy to see this get a “remake”
However, I completely disagree with your take on West Side Story. You don’t have comments open on that one so I’ll say it here. Tony Kushner added a lot to the characters to make them feel like real people, especially compared to other versions. There’s so much more storytelling in the writing and direction. The acting is perfect across the board. It shows racism is timeless but it also focuses on housing displacement which I would say is pretty prevalent today…and NOT brought up in the original! It doesn’t have to been an examination of very specific 2020 problems through a 1950s lens… Spielberg’s take is fresh and fulls much fuller than any version prior. And even if I’m not great at Spanish I didn’t feel left out considering context clues were VERY heavy. Also, Ariana’s last name is spelled “Debose” not “Dubose.” Maybe the movie is not what YOU wanted but don’t speak for everyone else because it made me do something I never thought possible:love West Side Story. Sorry but I had to get that off my chest. As stated above I agree heavily on Firestarter
I’ll fix that typo in the name. Yep, it’s not what I wanted, and since I am not familiar with West Side Story in general I couldn’t compare it to past versions. I generally like Steven Spielberg so thought I’d give it a chance.
Yeah, the original Firestarter is boring. I thought maybe it was partly due to me having read the book right before that, but no, it’s a blandly made film no matter how you slice it. I’ll have a review of Firestarter Rekindled (2002) for my next Stephen King flashback, and I’ll check out Firestarter (2022) eventually.
Thanks for reading my reviews, and even though we don’t always agree, I hope you’ll stick with them.