Firestarter 2: Rekindled
Tags: paranormal, revenge, murder, flashback

Plot synopsis:
Vincent Sforza (Danny Nucci) works for a large, influential research firm, and he has been put in charge of locating several people who were part of an old experiment from the 1970s—an experiment in which a group of college students were given a dose of a chemical called LOT-6. Apparently, the victims of the experiment have won a class action lawsuit and need to be found so that a check can be issued. Included on the list is Charlene "Charlie" McGee (Marguerite Moreau), the offspring of two of the participants in the experiment.
When Charlie was a kid, Charlie's mother Vicky (Karrie Combs) was murdered by men who worked for the now-defunct Shop, the government department that wanted to harness her pyrokinesis as a military weapon. Charlie's father Andy (Aaron Radl) was killed by John Rainbird, a professional killer who had been hired by the shop. Ever since then, Charlie has been in hiding to protect herself. Under an assumed name, she now has a job at a university library, where she secretly does research to find a way to suppress her pyrokinetic abilities.
When Vincent finally locates Charlie, he unintentionally sets into motion a series of events with deadly consequences. It turns out that there really isn't a class action lawsuit settlement. John Rainbird (Malcolm McDowell), who was thought to have been burned to death by Charlie, is still alive, scarred from the burns—and he's looking for Charlie, because he's still obsessed with her. Rainbird has been using the lie about a class action lawsuit to lure the original LOT-6 experiment's victims out of hiding so these victims can be killed one by one in order to keep things quiet.
Charlie gets help from James Richardson (Dennis Hopper), one of the victims of the LOT-6 experiment. The experiment has given James the ability to tell the future. When Vincent discovers that he's been duped into luring Charlie back to Rainbird, Vincent also decides to help Charlie.
John's been working on perfecting the LOT experiments, and has created 6 young boys with rather unusual abilities. One has the power of suggestion, another can sense truth and deception, two can move things with their mind, one has the destructive voice from hell, and the most dangerous one of them all is an energy sink, someone who can suck the life and energy out of anyone or anything.
Rainbird is using these children to rob a bank as a test of warfare in the new decade. With Vince and James on her side, Charlie must decide whether to keep running, or fight Rainbird to the end. Charlie chooses to fight to the end, and after Rainbird kills Vincent, Charlie kills Rainbird—right in front of his experimental boys—by taking him into a fiery embrace, and literally turning him into a pile of ashes. Then Charlie ends up in a one-on-one battle against the energy sink.
Charlie uses her powers to destroy the energy sink, and the other experimental boys realize that Charlie was telling them the truth when she said that they become a little less human every time they use their abilities. Charlie, finally having no need to be in hiding, later boards a bus to Canada.

Review: That is the only thing that i kept asking myself through out the long duration of this horrible thing.I must admit that i have never read the book, but i am a fan of the original film.
Firestarter 1 was good, it stuck with the book's plot, it changed a few minor details and cut a few scenes as expected but much of the actual dialogue was just as the book word-for-word....
however when I put Firestarter 2 in the DVD player, I was cringing at every detail, the information isnt accurate, it's made a complete mess of the original movie, the flashbacks to "what happened" were totally different, everything from the way her mother was killed to what happened at the Manders Farm.If you've never read the book or seen the first movie, you'll probably like it, but once you've read the book and gotten attached to the characters, you'll find this movie a huge disappointment..
The Sci Fi Channel almost had a hit with "Firestarter: Rekindled."Almost.For those who read the Stephen King novel or has seen the 1984 movie version of the novel with Drew Barrymore, stop right where you are.
They recreate Charlie's early story rather than use the footage from the original to keep the story in balance, also changing her parent's fate.If you could get over these problems, then you could really enjoy the film on a decent level.
They don't know the real story behind Rainbird, that they could possibly end up in the same situation as Charlie..
Originally airing as a Sci-Fi Channel original movie/mini-series, "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" is the only sequel to "Firestarter," a little horror movie from 1984 that was based on a Stephen King novel and starred a very young Drew Barrymore as the title character.
To say it takes liberties with its source material would be an understatement.Since this is 2002, and Drew Barrymore has better things to do, the role of Charlie McGee has been re-casted with Marguerite Moreau, who will certainly ring a bell to fans of "The Mighty Ducks." Malcolm McDowell of "A Clockwork Orange" fame steps into the shoes of George C.
Scott and looks even less Native American as John Rainbird, the manipulative megalomaniacal psychopath who exploited Charlie in the past and who, like Sam Loomis in "Halloween," can't shake his past obsessions, no matter what cost it comes at.
It's the job of Vincent Sforza (Danny Nucci) to track these people down so they can receive the rewards of a class action lawsuit (a.k.a. a brutal and swift cover-up death) and once he realizes something is awry, helps Charlie once again escape the clutches of Rainbird and his cronies, as well as fending off a group of genetically engineered "Super-Kids," who serve merely as plot devices and filler.
Also, there's Dennis Hopper as a tortured psychic who was obviously only written into the script so that his name could appear in the credits, possibly lending credibility to this sequel.All these little sub-plots do well enough to pad out the length of the "film," but for the most part, it follows the same "fox on the run" formula of the first.
The flashbacks were unnecessary because not only did they not add to the narrative at hand, but also because anyone watching a TV-movie/sequel should have at least seen the first movie or read the book.
Truth be told, if they had billed the movie simply as "Firestarter: Rekindled," dropping the "2," the results would have been less offensive and it would be suitable as more of a remake than it is a sequel.
But the flashbacks don't always line up with the story told in the first film (at least, what I remember of the first FireStarter film).Next, despite being 4 hours long, you never seem to get close to the characters.
as good as the other actors are in this film, Hopper makes the best of the screen time he's given.
Firestarter II is about the adventures of psychic Charlie McGee (Marguerite Moreau, Drew Barrymore's character from the first film) who is pitted against the evil John Rainbird (Malcolm McDowell) and his band of evil psychic children.
Also, the writing of pretty much any scene in the movie with Dennis Hopper is a horrifically bad attempt to back-fill plot holes.
The only really memorable performances are Vincent's (Danny Nucci) limping around acting clueless and Malcolm McDowell's shambling around scowling at things.The ending of the miniseries seems almost solely purposed to leave this WAY open for any sort of sequel(s).
I really liked the whole thing, and was pleasantly surprised - I was half-expecting a sloppy horror movie without much of a plot.
Who knows, perhaps this is all more faithful to the actual Stephen King novel but just don't call your movie "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" when you are taking a totally different approach with the story and completely ignore the stuff from the earlier 1984 movie."Firestarter" had a pretty much closed ending.
But if you have seen the first movie you know that it's pretty much a solid fact that there is no way the character could still be alive, or at least could definitely not look as 'well' as Malcolm McDowell did.
Couldn't they simply come up with a fresh new villain?But this is the foremost problem with this movie; it's a sequel without any imagination or good ideas.
Plenty of awesome ingredients and potential to play around with you would imaging but strangely enough the only thing they could come up with was letting the main character accidentally put stuff on fire every time she was getting too excited during sex.
An excellent subject for a science-fiction/thriller, you guys!They really didn't come up with anything good or exciting, which is really the most disappointing thing about this movie and its story.
Even though the movie is about 3 hours long (it can also be aired as a mini-series) nothing is really ever explained well enough, which also makes this movie a real unsatisfying one by the end, as well as just a pointless sequel and movie in general.Also really don't understand why Dennis Hopper showed up in this.
It also would had been nice if they actually cast someone who somewhat looked like Drew Barrymore, who played the main lead in the movie but instead they casted brunette Marguerite Moreau.
The acting in this movie was not all that bad though, which probably prevented it from ever becoming a truly bad and ridicules one.No, I really don't want to sound like I completely hated it.
You probably have seen way worse than this movie but a better story should had really made this movie at least somewhat remotely exciting and original to watch.You're really way better off watching just and only the first movie, which wasn't even that great of a movie in the first place either.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
Pretty much read and seen all of his movies/books.Anyway, I'd like to see this become a regular series.
I am not saying Firestarter II is a bad movie, but I think the premise was poorly thought out.
When I found this movie I thought it was a sequel to "Firestarter", 1984, a movie that adapted a Stephen King story.
I was expecting a better cast too, like the original cast from the first movie.
Marguerite Moreau takes over the role of "Charlie" McGee from Drew Barrymore, playing the now grown woman who is still on the run from sinister government forces determined to use her mental fire making abilities for their own ends, especially John Rainbird(now played by Malcolm McDowall) who has continued his experiments with a group of boys, whom he plans on using to take over the world...Strange sequel foolishly tries rewriting the climatic events of the first, in order to explain how Rainbird is still alive, despite his apparent demise there.
Story goes on far too long, and isn't at all interesting; Though both Moreau and McDowall try their best, this misconceived sequel falls totally flat..
I can understand not wanting to hurt someone if you don't have to, but I think that if I feared for my life, I would defend myself first and grapple with the emotional consequences later.-How do they expect anyone who saw the movie Firestarter to believe that Rainbird survived?
The reason that Charlie had to die according to John was that she held a power that had to be taken to the other side with him when he killed her.Secondly there was the issue of the fact that EVERYONE who has seen the original movie will tell you that John Rainbird only had one eye.
We know this because from the book and from the narrative in the movie there is a mention that he was in Vietnam and a claymore took half of his face.Thirdly, the reason that Charlie was being sought after was because she was the product of the marriage of 2 Lot Six participants.
It surprised me to find out that I thought this movie was better than the first Firestarter.
Who ever wrote that script should be shot compared to the original it was killed off and I feel sorry, other wise I was getting ready to see a very good movie but what I got was trash..
Meh. This movie was indeed interested and well done, but as far as a sequel to the original movie in 1984, it was pitiful.Acting was great, but the storyline didn't even come close to the idea Stephen King gave to the movie world.Everything was different.
People who have read the book and seen the first movie with Drew Barrymore as Charlie will probably agree with me.I still say it's a good movie, just not a decent sequel.I say watch it, but don't go into it expecting it to be a sequel.
If you have that approach in mind, you may enjoy it.Oh, and in response to a comment I read at some point about this movie.Firestarters or Pyrokinetics (if one does research) are known to unintentionally turn things into cripsy critters when they get excited or upset.
If you loved the Stephen King book, and the first movie, don't look at this as it's sequel.
not only did they make charlie as a grown up totaly not believable, but all of the flashbacks aren't even close to what actually happened in the original firestarter.
FIRESTARTER II is probably the best TV movie sequel I have ever seen.
In all, the film is just a lot of fun, especially with the addition of sexual tension between Charlie McGee (Marguerite Moreau) and John Rainbird (Malcom McDowell), and the creepy little children of the new experiment.
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.
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.
With that said, for the most part this is a good little film and certainly much better than the original.
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.
I wasn't totally disappointed, but my biggest pet peeves were that the flashbacks didn't match up with the events of the first film (Manders Farm, Vicky and Andy's deaths) and the fact that Rainbird was supposed to be dead.Could've been a lot worse though and for a miniseries this wasn't bad.
Watch the Original Firestarter - Do not Spend Your Time With This Sequel.
A Minor SpoilerIn the 80's, Stephen King's Firestarter was a successful movie in Brazil, with the lovely Drew Barrymore.
In both the book and the first movie, John Rainbird is quick-fried by Charlie...old boy is deader than Dubya's chances of re-election!
Pretty tepid stuff.As the story goes on, Charlie's hair gets less and less red, as if it had started browning from her first experience with Rainbird.
But to bastardize the original movie that the fans have come to love, just cheapens this already shaky film.Marguerite Moreau was a disaster as "Charlie" McGee. Her character was hollow and as plastic as a Barbie doll.
The only thing good I have to say about this "sequel" is that the effects were believable, but that doesn't begin to redeem this horrid waste of film.So disappointing to have them rewrite the ending of 1 like that.
Watched this movie today from the "Firestarter- The Franchise Edition" ( A 2 Movie set with both the original, & the Sequel.
My comments are reflective of the sequel- Firestarter 2 Rekindled.I don't even understand why this movie was made.
It neither follows the book or the established storyline laid out in the first movie.It is so bad that I just bet the Producers of the First movie absolutely refused to allow them to use any footage in the flashback segments, which the details of the story were greatly changed.Also the part of the villain- John Rainbird goes from a brutal assassin with devious charm, to some kind of Pencil stabbing Hannibal Lector.
Rainbird was killed in the book and in the first movie.
As for the relationship between him and Charlie in this film in my opinion is stupid as he killed her father in the 1st movie and in the book.
Also, as a kid the nickname Charlie (Charlene) might be "cute" but you'd think that as an adult she would no longer be going by Charlie.The annoyingly bad CGI, obvious green screen, sex comments that took away from the story, lousy soundtrack and generally bad acting built up to the point where by the end of the movie I had already made plans for the bonfire.
I would've sold it except I doubt anyone would've bought it.Firestarter was good enough on its own in 1984, the sequel here and the supposed upcoming remake is all just garbage and a cliché attempt to interest people with the plot of psychic powers.
I loved the book, and liked the original movie.As many others have commented, the script is so poorly done, with so many holes, that some pretty good actors are wasted.Just one example  **possible spoiler**:  after struggling for the entire four hours to avoid using her powers at all, she goes ballistic and kills innocent people left and right, before killing the man she really hates, who's standing vulnerable right in front of her?
I wasn't a fan of the original movie, despite liking Drew Barrymore.
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?
But I like it because I'm into movies that have people with psychic powers, in fact, I've discovered that I have 2 as well.
Plus, I love the powers each boy had, so this movie will get a half rating, a 5 like I mentioned.
Having seen the original, and having been a big fan of it for many years, I think this is an excellent sequel.
At the time of this writing I have not seen the original Firestarter, or read the book, so I can't comment on it's effectiveness as a sequel.
The overall effect emitted by her on screen presence is one of a frightened child, which is exactly what Charlie McGee is at heart.Malcolm McDowell is well known for playing the bad guy, and his turn as the obsessed John Rainbird is every bit as enjoyable as his other villainous roles.
It's like he tells Charlie "I had a boring job, but at least my life made sense."  He's the kind of guy who does what he's told and gets the job done.Dennis Hopper's Richardson is a minor character who does not appear until midway through the movie.
This taxes Charlie's nerves a little bit, but in the end we do find out if Richardson's claims come true or not.This section will contain spoilers if you have not seen the movie.
I think that Firestarter 2 is a good movie, because of the way it wraps up.
First of all, other than the character of Charlie and some flashbacks that are somewhat similar to the original, this movie pretty much throws out the entire first film.
Not to mention the doctor's personal records and a film showing the farmhouse massacre?The biggest problem with this movie is that Charlie could have ended it anytime she wanted to, but she spends most of the last 2 hours (or however long it is after the commercials) running away.
Everyone seems to complain about the flashbacks but if you have read the novel, they are a little more true to the story than the first film was (even though they are poorly acted).Charlie is now a "hottie" and trying to keep her pyrokenetic talents dorment.