'Firestarter' Review: A Remake So Loathsome & Embarrassing It Should Be Immediately Extinguished

Director Keith Thomas’ “Firestarter” is simply a substandard movie. What more can be said that wouldn’t belabor the point? A remake of Mark L. Lester’s kitschy film adaptation of Stephen King’s same-titled sci-fi horror novel; Thomas’ version, heading straight to Peacock, doesn’t have Drew Barrymore or Martin Sheen or even Tangerine Dream’s music. It stars Zac Efron and Sydney Lemmon as parents, Andy and Vicky, to a gifted daughter, Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong). The trio have telekinetic powers. But it’s Charlie, with the ability to set objects ablaze with her mind, who exudes not only the greatest potential but also the gravest danger in a world, and a film, with no idea what to do with her. 

READ MORE: Summer 2022 Movie Preview: 50 Must-See Films To Watch

With a movie this aimless, it’s difficult not to be overly cruel; but it’d be a small mercy if this movie were thrown on a fire as kindle. By remaking a narrative so steeped in the aesthetics of the 1980s, Thomas and screenwriter Scott Teems paint themselves in a corner: Should they acknowledge the silliness of the original or forge a different, more poignant path? Neither the visual language, a stream of optically ugly compositions, nor the writing, a meandering whirlpool of hokey one-liners, offers a fitting answer. In the process, many will confuse this narrative’s hesitations as a kind of endearing campiness. When, in fact, it’s bang-on bad. 

Even writing about it for this long feels like overkill. But every movie deserves its day in court, so to speak, so please bear with this summary: Even when it doesn’t seem like it, “Firestarter” is ultimately a story about Charlie, and the pain that occurs when families are torn apart. When Andy and Vicky were in college they participated in a pharmaceutical drug trial that specifically targeted orphans with latent telekinetic powers. Little did either know they’d become guinea pigs for a new drug, which imbued them with further abilities to “push,” a form of mind control. The pair ultimately escaped, giving birth to Charlie. Ever since then, they’ve been moving from place to place in a bid to hide their potent daughter from the government. It’s a battle they’ve mostly won. Except Charlie is losing control. The boys at school tease her, setting off her powers and exposing the family’s location to Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben), working for “The Shop,” an organization that wants to capture and create more Charlies. 

It’s unsettling how every minute of this 94-minute flick delivers a new level of boredom. You have to feel for the actors. Is there a performer more often failed by the inadequacies of Hollywood to craft juicy roles for leading men than Efron? For every fascinating choice such as “The Paperboy” or “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile,” there’s a disappointing “Baywatch” that follows. It’s no different here, in the opening minutes, as Efron is forced to deliver uncomfortable jokes about dreading his young daughter hitting puberty or cracking his neck to signal his powers. It’s all a bit tragic to see.

Later, Kurtwood Smith, appearing as Dr. Joseph Wanless, the man who created the drug used on Andy and Vicky, tries his best to imbue import to the dated warning that Charlie could cause a nuclear explosion simply with her mind. No actor appears more let down than Michael Greyeyes playing an advanced being sent to hunt down Charlie. He adds a sense of gravitas and an edge of terror in tonally inert scenes that are undeserving of his talent. 

Few other components of this garish movie escape unaffected, especially as Andy and Charlie, now on the lam, find themselves in odder and odder situations. In one scene, Andy’s daughter sets a cat on fire in a gratuitously graphic scene whose intent, disturbingly could be for laughs, but might not be (it’s anyone’s guess). In another, father and daughter come across an old man caring for his paraplegic wife. Once again it leads to a graphic scene rendered for emotionally hollow terms and narratively empty calories. That fat stems from nonexistent world-building: We’re never quite sure how far out these experiments extend or what control the group chasing Andy and Charlie possess. And the goal, Andy teaching Charlie how to control her powers, isn’t given space to flourish.

One must ask why now? It’s usually hitting below the belt to blame a movie’s marketing. You should review the work at hand. But the ads for “Firestarter” have tried to sell it as a superhero flick, and in its dialogue, the script acknowledges that bent. Everything else, from the score composed by John and Cody Carpenter, and Daniel Daviesi — one of the few highlights — to the engaging performance by Greyeyes, never really congeals with the artistically bankrupt, quick-fix work of trying to ramp this movie toward the mega-dollar superhero zeitgeist. 

That explains why this movie about a little girl hunted by the government for her body isn’t at all interested in her point of view. Instead, audiences must sit through cheap gore and anticlimactic chases to see Charlie learn how to control her powers for good… until she doesn’t. There are no deeper themes, or broader insights. Just corners cut without anything else in mind. If you want to see a fantastic superhero story concerned with the perspective of women, then seek out Julia Hart’s “Fast Color” instead of this loathsome misfire. [D-]