Watch Firestarter 2: Rekindled For Free

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

What a beautiful movie!

Expected more

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

I wasn't a fan of the original movie, despite liking Drew Barrymore. However, when I saw a basic cable channel was doing this, I was interested instantly, and after starting the two part-er , with the fitting explosive title sequence, my interest just increased, so I watched it. I hadn't seen Malcolm McDowell in much yet, but Dennis Hopper I already knew very well, firstly, from Speed. The second part followed more of the tradition of Carrie and unwilling fire setting. 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? Cause it sure seems like it, quoted by a villain or not.

I was never a fan of the first Firestarter (1984). I thought it was highly melodramatic, Drew Barrymore was a whiny brat and the only good side was the amazing soundtrack by Tangerine Dream. I highly doubt I'll enjoy the supposed 2015-16 remake, either. However, I loved King's Firestarter novel, and thought that maybe this would be a different experience...Man, I should've known better when I found it in a bargain bin at the local Dollar Store.Technically Rekindled was a TV miniseries, incredibly and unnecessarily long but somehow it was fit onto a DVD. It features the now college-aged Charlie as she researches her pyrokinetic abilities. Meanwhile an old enemy whom she assumed was dead long ago has come back, with a whole new gang of kids, and each kid has a "wild talent" all their own.The actress who played Charlie herself was pretty pathetic, and her character was obviously designed to appeal to pervy guys. There is one pointless scene where she has sex on the roof of a random guy's car (no idea who the guy is, is she a prostitute?) and making love makes her want to go burn down some buildings. What the...? 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 was very lucky to be burning the DVD's of that god-awful Hunger Games series crud the same day, so Firestarter 2 really "rekindled" the burning movie heap of bad ones in my backyard. 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 don't recommend watching this, and if you decide to, well, I wish you the best of luck in not having a breakdown right in front of your television.

Is this movie even an official sequel? I ask so because this movie totally ignores events from the previous movie and simply blatantly even alters things.This movie is filled with some flashbacks, that however don't make any sense when you have already seen the first movie. It completely ignores some fact from the first movie as well as actual moments that we did see happening. 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. All of the bad guys died and Charlie McGee eventually ended up well. But guess what, apparently the bad guy didn't die at all. He just altered. He now suddenly looks like Malcolm McDowell with a half burned face, instead of George C. Scott, who played the villain John Rainbird in the first movie. 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. It reminded me of the way they brought back the Durant character in all of the Darkman sequels. 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. Here you have a movie in which your main character has the ability to put everything on fire with her telekinetic powers, as well as a bunch of other persons with X-Men like powers. 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. So great, she can never have an orgasm. 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. But I still don't really know either what the main plot was supposed to be all about. Why does John Rainbird want to create super humans? And why does he need Charlie McGee for that so badly? What makes her so exceptional? 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. He plays a real boring character, that also really doesn't add anything to the story and could easily had been left out. 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. It's definitely watchable all, in the long run. 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/

OK I'm a little sketchy on this whole storyline. I have read the book one time, and it was ages ago. But Charlie as a child, hated starting fires, and hated it worse when people were hurt because of it. And since when can a man who was turned into charcoal(Rainbird) come back from the dead? She totally toasted his sorry butt, and in this sequel he's back with little brat minions? WTH??!!!! When I first saw this movie I thought it was good, but now I'm starting to see that it's just another piece of crap that should have been BURNT!!!!! Only reason I bought it is cause it came in a 2 disc package with the original.Wonder what Stephen King thinks of this garbage does anyone know? Cant believe these people get away with horrible stories like this. And what's worse it doesn't do Drew's Charlie justice at all.