As much as I have enjoyed his work over the years, Stephen King is very hit and miss when it comes to his work. Anyone so prolific is going to be. And filmed adaptations of his work have been even more hit and miss. Yes, we got The Shining, Carrie, and the likes of Stand By Me. But we also got The Mangler and The Langoliers (which I mention here as an oft-cited example, despite my own affection for it). Firestarter was originally adapted for the screen back in 1984, and most people would agree that it was an imperfect little film, at best. Drew Barrymore did well in the lead role, David Keith was great, but it couldn't do justice to a story that wasn't the strongest in the first place. And George C. Scott is, well, interesting to watch. This is all my way of saying that, yes, Firestarter was something that was arguably worth having another shot at. I'm not sure this end result was really the way to go though, especially as it is hampered while trying to stick so closely to the source material.
Directed by Keith Thomas, who made a strong impression on many people with his horror feature debut, The Vigil, this casts Ryan Kiera Armstrong in the important central role, the pyrokinetic Charlie McGee, and Zac Efron and Sydney Lemmon as her parents, both trying to protect Charlie from anyone taking an interest in her powers while also trying to protect themselves from any temperature-raising accidents. There's definitely interest from a Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben), who has permitted an "agent" named Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) to hunt down the family and take possession of Charlie.
Written by Scott Teems, Firestarter is a film that is completely competent, and improves on the original in a couple of ways (not least of which is replacing Scott with Greyeyes). It somehow lacks part of the goofy charm of the original though, which also had room in the cast for Heather Locklear, Martin Sheen, Louise Fletcher, and Art Carney (his role played in this adaptation by the excellent John Beasley). Maybe it’s because it cannot replicate just that image of Barrymore looking moody as her hair is blown around and flames start to develop, an image so brilliantly spoofed by Barrymore herself in a wonderfully memorable SNL skit. Or maybe it is because Teems was so set on a faithful adaptation that he didn’t feel as if he could try anything that might improve things further. This is a safe horror movie. I cannot think of anyone who would outright hate it, but I also cannot think of anyone who might end up loving it. The opening third has all of the best moments, and then it just slides down and down from there.
Armstrong is good in the role of Charlie, and she does well with the necessary “look sternly at things until it starts to heat up” expressions. Efron also does well, and gets to have a couple of good moments using his own skill to "push" people, something that is inevitably causing him a bit more damage every time he does it. Lemmon isn't necessarily bad, but she's given the least to do from the main cast members. Greyeyes is a formidable hunter, Reuben does well as the standard head of operations who gravely underestimates the situation, Kurtwood Smith is as good as ever in his small role, and I've already intimated how good Beasley is.
I'll be very surprised if many people can remember this film once the end credits have rolled. Thomas directs in line with the script, safely and competently, and nobody involved gets to put any strong fingerprints on the material, including King. Anyone somehow unaware of the original, novel or film, would probably watch this and think of it as a pale imitation of something that King would come up with. There's no energy to it, no real feeling of people living their lives in this world. No . . . spark.
Maybe someone else will have a go at this material in 30-40 years. Meanwhile, there are many other movies riffing on this kind of thing that are easier to recommend than this, and I would suggest films as varied as Brightburn, Freaks, and Looper for starters.
5/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
No comments:
Post a Comment