AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Boba_Fett1138 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/

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

tribblechomper In both the book and the first movie, John Rainbird is quick-fried by Charlie...old boy is deader than Dubya's chances of re-election! The book also describes Rainbird as a Native American; correct me if I'm wrong, but neither George C. Scott (in the first movie) nor Malcolm McDowell (in the second) struck me as even trying to look Native American!!! Now, are we to believe that you can look like the guy who played Patton, get quick-cooked, and come back looking like the guy that killed Captain James T. Kirk? Are we also to believe that you can have an accent of one who hails from Wise, Virginia, get roasted, and suddenly have the accent of one raised in Leeds, England? Just how MANY Native Americans raised on the reservation have British accents, anyway?

Elswet I couldn't believe it! They TOTALLY REWROTE the ending of Firestarter 1, to accommodate this piece of trash!The movie would've been fine. I would've even settled for Skye McCole Bartusiak *shudders* as a stand-in for Drew. Not that she could've ever hoped in a million years to fill her shoes. But to bastardize the original movie that the fans have come to love, just cheapens this already shaky film.Marguerite Moreau was a disaster as "Charlie" McGee. Her character was hollow and as plastic as a Barbie™ doll. Her performance was hesitant and off the mark completely. The only thing good I have to say about this "sequel" is that the effects were believable, but that doesn't begin to redeem this horrid waste of film.So disappointing to have them rewrite the ending of 1 like that. If they hadn't done that, I might could have liked it. It gets a sorry 0.2/10 from...the Fiend :.