pabald9480 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.

disdressed12 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

Daz3467 I found this movie had made a crushing compared to the first original movie. I really didn't expect to but I actually laughed because I did not think the acting was good enough and really stunk. The story line or script for that matter was completely all over the place and should have been rewritten. Not good enough for my view. They should have got Drew Barrymore again when she was grown up in her teens for the same part but a better story line. That little girl in the movie, her acting was terrible, I am not allowed too, I am not allowed too, she kept saying those words in which you wouldn't expect her to say them. 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.

domino1003 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 have taking a HUGE liberty with both. In the novel, there were only 3 remaining subjects of the Lot 6 program (Charlie's parents and Richardson). This version has an agency that is bumping off the original participants by promising a cash settlement from the program. Danny Nucci plays Vincent Sforza, working for the agency in finding these people, although her doesn't know what happens once they're found. One of the people on the list is Charlie McGee, now a young woman (Marguerite Moreau). Seems that Charlie has some issues of her own. Whenever she gets "excited," she gets VERY hot, so hot that things catch fire (In one instance, she smolders an entire hotel room). She's also been living her life on the run ever since her parents were killed by the government agency known as The Shop. One of their operatives, Rainbird (Malcolm McDowell), wants Charlie, even after she turns him into a charred lunatic. He wants Charlie bad enough to kill (And he likes using a pencil as a weapon!). He's also done something else with the Lot 6 experiment: 6 boys with individual powers (One is an energy vampire, another with a killer voice)that are being used to create an ultimate weapon.A lot of questions were left unanswered: What happened to The Shop and the Manders? There are a lot of plot holes: Are we supposed to swallow the fact that Rainbird who, in both the novel and 1984 version was burnt to a crispy critter, yet manages to survive without looking MORE disfigured? And what's the thing with Richardson(A bored looking Dennis Hopper)? He doesn't really serve any real purpose other than to claim that he knows what's going to happen. 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. If you're a purist of the novel and the 1984 version, then you are going to spend all of your time picking the film apart. The saving grace is the 6 boys. They don't know the real story behind Rainbird, that they could possibly end up in the same situation as Charlie.