Absolutely the worst movie.

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I think this movie was so, so. I'm into sci-fi movies so I gave it a 5. 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. So with that, my interest it still sparked. Although the first Firestarter was way better than this one, and this one should have picked up from where the other stopped, or been a remake of the old 1984 one. But possessing Claircognizance & the psychological form of echokinesis too, I'm well aware that psi powers are real. Plus, I love the powers each boy had, so this movie will get a half rating, a 5 like I mentioned. Nice, but could have been much better.

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

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 is way too long, has some of the worst acting and story plot I've ever seen. 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. It just didn't work for the part of that particular character.Also Charlene sure takes quite a while to unleash her powers and "free herself" from the unrelenting agency that has tracked her down and killed everyone and everything she ever cared about. Just a bit hard to swallow.I just kept asking myself and my wife..... How much of this movie is there left???? That is never a good thing!

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. From beginning to end. 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. Approach it as a whole other movie. 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. So when Charlie burns the alley because of getting sexually aroused, it's not ridiculous. It's actually pretty true to the facts about pyrokinesis.And here is where I bring a close to my little comment.If you're into the supernatural and things like that, see it. If you loved the Stephen King book, and the first movie, don't look at this as it's sequel. You will be severely disappointed.