mike48128 Great special effects almost "save" a very stupid movie. "The Fury" made 6 years earlier is a far better concept film. Like the still-popular "X-Men" type films, how or why such genetic abnormalities and powers exist is never explained. Mutated parents=mutated kid. Blame the government! King usually mentions the original author in his forwards to avoid outright plagiarism charges. Big deal. Too much like "Carrie" which has a far better premise and delivery. Here, cute and angelic Drew Barrymore is in reality a cold-blooded killer and has repeated temper tantrums with horrific results. I am unable to have any sympathy for her character "Charlie". The fireball ending kills off 50 to 100 people or so. Mostly faceless agents, firefighters and cops, not to mention most of the principle players. I just don't like it because the special effects are too good for the weak premise. Why would she "turn herself in" to The New York Times at the end? She would certainly be jailed, killed or institutionalized for the rest of her natural life! Would Shirley Temple have made a movie like this? Fun only if you like to see miniature pyrotechnics and hysterical extras running around in fire-suits. I guess that's why it's a horror film?

Predrag The film is without a doubt a classic and watchable even today. It is thoroughly entertaining and once watched won't easily be forgotten. The gorgeous, heartbreakingly beautiful Heather Locklear met her demise early which surprised me and from then on the film just got better and better with real nasty villains after a surviving, loving father desperately trying to save his daughter Charlie, played by Drew Barrymore. Drew Barrymore captured my attention forever with her portrayal of Charlie in this film, she was brilliant and I don't think the part could have been played as well or as profoundly by anyone else.I think the movie was very well-directed, flashback scenes were edited appropriately, acting was quite good (George C Scott steals the movie with a great performance; his Rainbird character is one duplicitous villain played with perfection) although I think Drew Barrymore did also a great job portraying Charlie, the little girl with a terrifying supernatural gift and affection for her father. Special effects were awesome. I've read some criticisms about the special effects in this movie; quite frankly I have no idea why anyone would complain about the special effects in this movie unless they are expecting CGI effects. Personally, I prefer old-fashioned special effects. I am happy this movie was made with the special effects that were used back in the day.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

william_morris Although the script hits all the major beats and is a reasonably faithful adaptation, for those who have read the novel upon which the movie is based the story will feel rushed and frequently awkward. On its own merits, though, it's a decent enough thriller. Drew Barrymore gives a good performance for one so young, and the casting choices for Rainbird, Wanless, and "Cap" are perfect. I do miss Rainbird's backstory; his feelings toward Charlie would make much more sense, but that's a relatively minor thing. It's always tough to cut a novel of that scope down to a two hour film, but if the film has one major flaw it is the soundtrack, a hopelessly dated synth score that was "awesome" in my high school years, but seriously distracts now.

NateWatchesCoolMovies Film versions of Stephen King novels can be a tricky thing. Often they're half assed, clunky miniseries (ever tried to sit down and watch The Langoliers??), and when they're given the lofty cinema treatment, he has famously turned his nose in the face of Kubrick's might. I feel like Firestarter escaped unscathed, and still holds to this day, if a bit achingly retro now. It's a thriller perceived in a childlike manner by its young protagonist, Charlie Mcgee (Drew Barrymore). Charlie can start fires with her mind, and certain shadowy agencies just can't wait to get their hands on her. Her father (David Keith) once participated in some scary drug testing related to telekinesis back in the day, and some of whatever altered his DNA has been passed on to her. He will do anything to protect her, as the two frantically race across the country to safety, pursued by forces working for Hollister (Martin Sheen), a spook with too much power and nasty ideas about what to do with it. Also on their trail is pseudo spiritual whacko John Rainbird, who wants to absorb Charlie's abilities, man what a freak. Rainbird is a native American in King's novel, so white haired yankee boy Scott is an odd choice, but he does a fine job all the same. Two things are what makes this one really stand out in a special way. Tangerine Dream provides yet another ultrasonic, elemental synth score that has since become legendary. It accents the story in an almost fairy tale like way, gilding the danger with a fable style sound, but never stamping out the real menace. Barrymore is the other leg of the table, giving one hell of a fierce and vulnerable performance for such a young girl, her childlike honesty a prism for the audience to see the evil around her through innocent eyes. It's great stuff, and one of the most solid King adaptations out there. Now there is a sequel (not sure if the man wrote a second book?) called Firestarter 2: Rekindled, which pales in comparison and runs about 45 minutes too long (!), but it's worth a look for the casting of Marguerite Moreau as a grown up Charlie, Malcolm McDowell taking over from Scott as Rainbird, and Dennis Hopper as well.