TheMovieSearch R
Revisiting the original Firestarter as an adult, especially after seeing its modern remake, makes it clear just how closely the two versions mirror each other. The story beats, character arcs, and overall structure feel nearly identical, with only slight deviations separating them. Yet despite that familiarity, the 1984 film starring a young Drew Barrymore carries its own distinct identity—one shaped by the era and by Barrymore’s performance, which remains the strongest element of the entire film.
Drew Barrymore stands out immediately, delivering a performance that feels far more layered and emotionally grounded than what we typically see from child actors of that era. There’s no hesitation in saying she outshines the performers in the remake; she brings vulnerability, fear, and raw intensity that elevate the film beyond its screenplay. Her presence alone gives the movie a sense of authenticity that the newer version never fully captures.
As a product of its time, the film works. The practical effects, the visual style, and the tone all blend to create something that feels very much rooted in the 1980s. But that strength is also its limitation. While adults who grew up in that era might find a sense of nostalgia embedded in the film, younger viewers of today are unlikely to revisit it or feel compelled to explore it repeatedly. It lacks the timeless spark that pulls new generations in and keeps them engaged.
The direction is interesting because it manages to make the audience feel the weight and power of the story—particularly in the emotional stakes surrounding Charlie’s abilities—but it also creates an off-putting tonal imbalance. Certain stylistic choices clash with the narrative’s more grounded moments, making the film feel uneven. That inconsistency seems to stem largely from the screenplay, which sometimes pushes tension and atmosphere at the expense of cohesion.
Watching Firestarter today raises a clear question: does it hold up in 2025? The answer is complicated. It can still work if approached with the right mindset—either as a piece of King-era nostalgia or as an academic look at how genre filmmaking evolved. But as a casual watch, without any personal history attached to it, the film struggles. It doesn’t quite recapture childhood fascination, nor does it offer enough freshness to fully engage a first-time modern viewer.
Ultimately, the original Firestarter is a fun film with moments of genuine power, but it undeniably feels old in ways that aren’t charming or intentional. Some movies age into classics; this one simply ages. It never fully reaches that "revisit again and again" status, nor does it spark a lasting emotional connection for new audiences. While Drew Barrymore’s performance remains a highlight worth acknowledging, the film itself lacks the enduring magic needed to keep it alive for generations to come.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
11/15/25
Full Review
Glen M
Sadly, a complete piece of waster filmmaking.
I saw this when it came out in 1984. I had hoped it would be one of Stephen King's better movies, a la Carrie, but alas, not to be.
The movie establishes nothing noteworthy. As adorable as she is, Drew Barrymore's performance was as weak as the rest of the cast. George C. Scott hams it up, to no avail.
There is absolutely NO plot or storyline here. The film simply meanders from scene to scene without any more grip than a Teflon pan.
And I am not one for special effects. Whole brought-up-on-CGI crowd values thrills more than acting/storyline/writing, but it's not for me. And watching this 40 years later makes it apparent that my first take on it was...generous. For those who can enjoy a completely vacuous movie, this one's for you!
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
10/23/25
Full Review
Blu B
Lots of crazy ideas, pyrotechnics, and an all star cast and yet my reaction was just a lot of indifference. Everything here is just...alright as a whole. The acting is all over the place. Sheen isn't bad, Keith isn't good, most other people are super forgettable, but the standout is Scott who is the one consistently good thing in this. Which is crazy given he has such an over the top character. Barrymore isn't bad but her performance really depends on the quality of the adult actor she's with. When it's her & Scott together she is good and they have great chemistry. It's honestly a shame Scott isn't in more of the first half. The special effects are good with tons of fire in the end. The direction is alright though. We think this is gonna be about Keith at first, than it jumps around and than becomes about Barrymore. The script makes sense and is...something man. It's so farfetched and crazy. Like it's kind of crazy how accepting it is of this over the top ridiculous idea. This is basically a less good version of Carrie. We don't really explore why she has the powers. Problem is it never really truly defines what her powers are either so it feels like random stuff just happens. And dear god some of the scenes the acting is so cheesy and campy. Whenever they use their mind powers it's laughably bad at certain times and just how serious this is the entire time makes it so odd but indirectly funny. It's got the hallmarks of a bad film but Scott, some of the production value, and the fact it never is boring saves it from being a passable train wreck. I think the biggest problem is the lack of focus on committing toeither Barrymore or Keith. And also the out of order flashbacks in the first half don't help either and make it feel very sloppy. But again it's never incoherent. Just ridiculous and farfetched. Skip This still. Watch Carrie instead.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
06/21/25
Full Review
Jonathan O
Firestarter has really impressive fire effects and incredible stunts but not feeling Stephen King's universe is like watching a different movie and the cast are terrific but not great and the writing is not good but only small good writing parts and Drew Berrymore really is a star but audiences may feel a follow up to E.T. lol.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
05/03/25
Full Review
darren m
Anyone not liking this thoroughly enjoyable tour de force of special effects and superb child acting needs their head examined. She literally burns everything and everyone in the grand scenes. What's not to like? See the clips for yourself online. The director and screenwriter understood the power of excess and entertaining horror elements. Along the lines of the Evil Dead, the creators knew to tell a story with EXCESS- a story of revenge most viewers love: complete and total destruction of bad people.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
03/14/25
Full Review
N P
So, initially, this movie wasn't on my radar at all. But, the trailer happened to be on my YouTube page, so I watched it. And, I couldn't help but see SO MANY similarities between this movie and Stranger Things' Eleven and her storyline. So, I had to watch it, and I did.
The major props of Firestarter is mainly its source material, a novel by Stephen King, a horror novel legend. The unique concept of a young girl with powers being hunted and tested by the government is just a really interesting and somewhat possible concept. The synopsis of this movie would have drawn people in. But, the first half of the movie is a slow burn - it kind of meanders and I wish they would have spent more time with the family unit, so the emotional scenes and stakes would have hit harder in general. The second half, though, focuses more on the government side of things, which I enjoyed, gained more empathy and felt tense towards the climatic end for sure. Additionally, it definitely feels like a 80s movie with the synth score, and the pyrotechnics involved were wildly visually cool to look it.
Feel free to check it out if you're interested!
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/16/25
Full Review
Read all reviews
Continue with Google
>
