Search
FIRESTARTER (2022)
4.4
Rate It
Movie
Based on the 1980 Stephen King novel of the same name, FIRESTARTER follows young Charlie as she...
Mr Mercedes
8.5
Rate It
TV Show
Mr. Mercedes is an American mystery thriller television series based on the novel of the same name...
Mr Mercedes
Grinch (194 KP) rated Stand by Me (1986) in Movies
May 7, 2017
Based on the Stephen King novel, The body, which is the backdrop to this great story. (2 more)
Outstanding acting from the then young cast.
Nostalgic story of friendship and the vulnerability of youth.
Coming of age movie, with the late River Phoenix. Stand by Me is a small, quiet film that walks tall and resonates long after.
Dean (6927 KP) rated The Outsider in TV
Mar 9, 2020
Typical Stephen King (1 more)
Great look to the show
Gripping Storyline
I decided to give this a go as it's based on a Stephen King novel. From the first episode you will be hooked. A truly terrible murder has been committed and the suspect is seen by many witnesses. It seems an open and shut case apart from the fact the suspect is also seen 60 miles away at the time.
I really enjoyed this, one of the best TV shows I've seen in a while. In many ways the look, feel and the way it unravels reminded me of @True Detective as the police and investigators try to make reason of a complex case. But it could be something they couldn't possibly have imagined.
If you like a typical Stephen King story that you know will be weird and wonderful start watching this!
I really enjoyed this, one of the best TV shows I've seen in a while. In many ways the look, feel and the way it unravels reminded me of @True Detective as the police and investigators try to make reason of a complex case. But it could be something they couldn't possibly have imagined.
If you like a typical Stephen King story that you know will be weird and wonderful start watching this!
Hearts in Atlantis (2001)
6.7
Rate It
Movie
When middle-aged photographer Bobby Garfield (David Morse) returns to his hometown for the funeral...
Stephen King
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Erika Kehlet (21 KP) rated Forsaken (Shadow Cove Saga #1) in Books
Feb 21, 2018
***NOTE: I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review***
Forsaken is a book partially based on characters and events from the Salem witch trials. Some of these events find their way into the latest novel by best-selling novelist Thad McAlister.
Throughout the story, the author allows you glimpses into the past via excerpts from Clayton Stone's journal, showing you important events that happened in 1692. These journal entries give you just enough information to keep you guessing and add to the suspense when you are reading about the present. There were some good twists and a nice salute to Stephen King (one of my favorites) that made this even more fun to read. This was a great stay-up-all-night-reading type of spooky story, and I recommend this book to any fans of horror novels, witches, or things that go bump in the night. I will also be on the lookout for book #2 of the Shadow Cove Saga, to find out what happens to Ashley and Rachael!
Forsaken is a book partially based on characters and events from the Salem witch trials. Some of these events find their way into the latest novel by best-selling novelist Thad McAlister.
Throughout the story, the author allows you glimpses into the past via excerpts from Clayton Stone's journal, showing you important events that happened in 1692. These journal entries give you just enough information to keep you guessing and add to the suspense when you are reading about the present. There were some good twists and a nice salute to Stephen King (one of my favorites) that made this even more fun to read. This was a great stay-up-all-night-reading type of spooky story, and I recommend this book to any fans of horror novels, witches, or things that go bump in the night. I will also be on the lookout for book #2 of the Shadow Cove Saga, to find out what happens to Ashley and Rachael!
Salem's Lot
8.1
Rate It
Book
'Turn off the television - in fact, why don't you turn off all the lights except for the one over...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Mr Harrigan's Phone (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Contains spoilers, click to show
Mr Harringan's phone is a film based on a short story by Stephen King. Like a lot of Kings work the film is a slow burn but one without much of a pay off.
Mr Harringan's phone follows Craig, a young boy who is hired by the reclusive Mr Harringan. After working for him for a few years Mr Harringan dies. During his period of grief Craig phones Mr Harringan's old phone and tells him about the problems he is having with a bully, the bully dies soon after and Craig is sure the dead Mr Harringan has something to do with it.
Mr Harringan's phone has the potential to be a great ghost film but it doesn't manage to pull it off. The first 40 to 50 minutes of the film builds up the relationship between Craig and Mr Harringan leaving around an hour for the spooky stuff. However there is little actual horror, there are only 2 deaths due to the ghost and you don't see either of them. The film give what could be natural reasons for the deaths and tries to focuse on the effect they have on Craig as he thinks that he caused them but even this seems lacking.
The film feels like it's trying to be a 'classic' set in the modern day, like a Charles Dickens novel set in the naughties and it does pull this off but still seems to be lacking something.
If you are looking for something like the ring then this probably isn't for you but if you want a slow burn in the gothic/Dickens vain then it may be worth a watch.
Mr Harringan's phone follows Craig, a young boy who is hired by the reclusive Mr Harringan. After working for him for a few years Mr Harringan dies. During his period of grief Craig phones Mr Harringan's old phone and tells him about the problems he is having with a bully, the bully dies soon after and Craig is sure the dead Mr Harringan has something to do with it.
Mr Harringan's phone has the potential to be a great ghost film but it doesn't manage to pull it off. The first 40 to 50 minutes of the film builds up the relationship between Craig and Mr Harringan leaving around an hour for the spooky stuff. However there is little actual horror, there are only 2 deaths due to the ghost and you don't see either of them. The film give what could be natural reasons for the deaths and tries to focuse on the effect they have on Craig as he thinks that he caused them but even this seems lacking.
The film feels like it's trying to be a 'classic' set in the modern day, like a Charles Dickens novel set in the naughties and it does pull this off but still seems to be lacking something.
If you are looking for something like the ring then this probably isn't for you but if you want a slow burn in the gothic/Dickens vain then it may be worth a watch.
I would rate this 3.5/5 stars.
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!
I’ve never been able to find myself wanting to read Stephen King, and after a few attempts when I was younger to start one of his novels, I still couldn’t and so until this book I have never finished a Stephen King. I persevered through this one because it had been lent to me by a friend with a good review and I had watched the tv series based on it a few years ago.
The start of this novel was very slow and confused me in a few points (but I think that was intentional as our main character – Jake Epping – was also pretty confused at the same time). But because not much was happening, I kept putting the book down, distracted to do something else and really having to force myself to pick it back up. Once I managed to get to part 2, I found that I was much more interested in the story and the plot line and it wasn’t such a chore to make the time to read it. I then had a difficult time to put the book down, and most nights I was only putting it down because I was falling asleep in the middle of a sentence! I read the last quarter of the book in a day, because I just wanted to know what was going to happen and whether he was going to be able to stop the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Overall, I found the concept very interesting and not just the time travel. I found the concept of the past not wanting to be changed and actively trying to stop someone from changing it interesting, and sometimes it was quite comical the amount of things that went wrong when Jake was trying to change the past. I did, however, find the ending very disappointing. It felt like it was starting to be set up for a different ending and then at the last minute the author decided to change it completely. It just didn’t seem to fit with the set up of the last chapter or so, but I can see why it was done and that the ending that was being set up wouldn’t work in terms of not changing the past.
A very interesting read, but with a disappointing ending, but I would still recommend it!