“Firestarter” (1984) served as a cautionary tale for Blumhouse’s “Firestarter” (2022) by showing what not to do in every instance. Writer Scott Teems (“Halloween Kills”) and director Keith Thomas take heed of the warning, and do everything better. The new film – in theaters and streaming on Peacock — is paced better, it has superior mood and stakes, and every actor is better.
The book provides a spark
Teems uses Stephen King’s 1980 book not as a step-by-step instruction manual, but rather as a foundation and inspiration. But it actually is more accurate in one sense: For the first time in three films – following George C. Scott in “Firestarter” and Malcolm McDowell in “Firestarter: Rekindled” — Native American assassin Rainbird actually is played by a Native American.
As a bonus, Michael Greyeyes gives the best performance. This Rainbird is a villain, but not villainous. He does his assigned tasks but takes no pleasure in them. Indeed, he wants titular youngster Charlie McGee (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) to kill him at adventure’s end, so he can get the hellish punishment he thinks he deserves.
“Firestarter” (2022)
Director: Keith Thomas
Writer: Scott Teems, based on Stephen King’s novel
Stars: Zac Efron, Ryan Kiera Armstrong, Michael Greyeyes
Teems smartly drops the entire chunk of King’s book where Charlie and dad Andy (Zac Efron, too low-key behind his beard) are in captivity. That’s worthwhile stuff in the novel – commenting on Stockholm Syndrome and the inhumanity of being caged up, even when treated fairly well — but it’s not cinematic.
So “Firestarter” ’22 becomes about Charlie trying to stay a step ahead of government agents, led by Gloria Reuben’s Captain Hollister (gender swapped from the book). Being captured is not an option.
Armstrong is much better than Drew Barrymore in the original. I got a good sense of a girl losing her parents and only having herself to rely on – sort of like Cindel in “Ewoks: The Battle for Endor,” except Charlie doesn’t even have a teddy bear (she burned it up, natch), let alone an Ewok.
Smart new details
While it’s not common for a youngster to be all alone in the world, parents might find “Firestarter” universal in the way Andy and Vicky (Sydney Lemmon, in a role expanded from the book) try to teach Charlie when it’s best to hold back (say, against school bullies) and when it’s OK to release gouts of flame (say, against agents who aim to experiment on her).
Every new detail from Teems is worthwhile. Rainbird possessing telekinesis gives him an immediate and bizarre bond with his targets. The interlude where Andy and Charlie visit Good Samaritan Irv Manders (veteran character actor John Beasley) is laced with low-key horror as Manders is himself a little off-kilter.
Films like “Firestarter” will always face an uphill climb with some horror fans because, purposefully, it’s not scare-oriented. There is one great gore effect, but generally it falls into the moody subgenre of horror, with the style complementing the on-the-run drama.
Cinematographer Karim Hussain gives a smoky look to the interiors, as if there’s always a fire in the next room over. The outdoors are a bright escape, but often out of reach because the McGees are hiding, almost like Anne Frank’s family. (By modern standards, this means no wi-fi and no Google; this has the side effect of making Charlie a freak at school.)
Meanwhile, John Carpenter leads the music team. He was in line to helm 1984’s “Firestarter” but, bizarrely, the “failure” of “The Thing” (1982) cost him the job. So it’s great that he now contributes to a superior “Firestarter,” while also giving it an Eighties feel via the keys-and-percussion score.
Burning bright
The special effects of fire combine nicely with Armstrong’s intense look, but if there’s one notably weak aspect to “Firestarter” it’s that it can’t quite make fire scary. Fire is terrifying in real life, but somehow none of these films capture its horrific aspect. In the first one, I watched the flames hoping that no stunt person would get hurt; in “Rekindled” and this one, I watched for the smoothness of the effects (which have clearly improved in 20 years).
Maybe it’s because we can usually run away from fire, or because the notion of someone creating fire with their mind and wielding it is so purely science fiction. But it doesn’t do much for me as a cinematic threat.
Still, there’s something genuine about a little kid trying to get a handle on her powers even as she loses her parents and tries to avoid other people – all of whom are her enemies, directly or accidentally. It’s not indie-film-gem genuine, but it’s at least “X-Men”-flick genuine.
“Firestarter” is short (94 minutes) and it eliminates that large swath of King’s book. Yet it’s the most substantial and engaging of the franchise’s three screen versions.
Want more Stephen King reviews? On most Fridays, RFMC reviews a King book, adaptation or related work. Click here to visit our Stephen King Zone.