pabald9480 I wasn't a fan of the original movie, despite liking Drew Barrymore. However, when I saw a basic cable channel was doing this, I was interested instantly, and after starting the two part-er , with the fitting explosive title sequence, my interest just increased, so I watched it. I hadn't seen Malcolm McDowell in much yet, but Dennis Hopper I already knew very well, firstly, from Speed. The second part followed more of the tradition of Carrie and unwilling fire setting. The first part was a mixture of flashbacks: George C Scott did a good John Rainbird, but M M D, I felt was more convincing as the villainous J R.) displaying the Shop's devious agenda, plus an attempted love interest for Charlie.One thing that has stayed with me for many years, is a quote/ monologue by John Rainbird, that's listed on here, and I've tried asking about its origin, and it sounds like a paraphrased Bible verse, and if so, which one?I can't seem to access the F A Q to ask about this, any ideas? Cause it sure seems like it, quoted by a villain or not.

Talan Silva I was really disappointed with the boring start to the movie to the boring end of it too. I was expecting a better cast too, like the original cast from the first movie. Despite loving Drew Barrymore's acting in the first FireStarrer I thought I would give this a shot. The storyline made NO sense, going back to the first movie and not exactly being accurate left me very annoyed as it could have been done heaps better. The special effects are pitiful, cheap and nasty just like the acting. 2/10- one of the worst "Stephen King inspired" movies. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew his novel would be such a terrible film.

Michael_Elliott Firestarter 2 (2002) *** (out of 4) Charlie (Marguerite Moreau) is now all grown up and in hiding when an agent (Danny Nucci) finally tracks her down. The agents quickly connects with the troubled girl and gets her to agree to go back to the lab with him but Dr. (Malcolm McDowell) is still evil and wanting to use her for her power. I was rather nervous walking into this nearly three hour sequel especially since I didn't care too much for the first film but I was pleasantly surprised at how much this kept me caught up in the story. However, let's get it straight that this here is in no way, shape or form a sequel. Events from the first movie are shown here but they're being done by different actors and even different things happen here. Many major plot points from the first film are changed and altered here so this is basically just a remake but with much more detail. I thought the story itself was very well done here and it's certainly explained much better than in the first film. The thoughts behind the experiment are better detailed and I thought the film also did a very good job at showing the bad side of being Charlie and on the run her entire life. I really thought the personal drama between the characters were believable and it certainly helped keep you invested in such a long movie. The performances were also extremely good with Moreau doing a nice job in the main role. She was very believable in the part and certainly made you care about what happened to her. McDowell plays crazy without a problem and makes for a great villain and we've also got Dennis Hopper playing a psychic and we all know that he always adds some good entertainment value. Nucci was also good and managed to have some nice chemistry with Moreau. The film still has some pretty big flaws including the horrid CGI effects and especially all of the stuff dealing with fire. The ending is also rather weak and should have been done in a much better way. With that said, for the most part this is a good little film and certainly much better than the original. Just don't go into it expecting a sequel.

disdressed12 it's been a little while since i've seen this sequel to the 1984 original.however,i do remember that i really liked the girl who played the grown up version of Charlie.i thought she did well in the role.there's a lot more excitement in this one,i believe.it's much higher energy.again,the acting is serviceable,though the plot seems sillier than it did in the first movie.also,clocking in at nearly 3 hours running time is a real negative here.i think the story could have been told in much less time than that.they certainly could have shaved off an hour.but as sequels go(other than the long running time)this movie is not half bad.for me,Fire Starter 2:Rekindled is a 5.5/10