Search
Search results
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).
Asphalt 6: Adrenaline HD
Games and Entertainment
App
Prepare for the ride of your life with the new iPad Retina display and improved visual effects! ...
Ultimate Fox Simulator
Games and Entertainment
App
Dash into a brand new adventure as a wild Fox! For the first time ever, choose from THREE PLAYABLE...
Toddler Sound 123 - Flashcards for baby
Education and Games
App
Touch, look, and listen: 135 sounds and images of animals, musical instruments, vehicles, and more....
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Witchwood Crown in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Gosh, what a long book!
Review I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
Ultimate Horse Simulator
Games and Education
App
Gallop into a brand new adventure as a beautiful wild Horse! Live wild and free in a gorgeous new...
HyperGrowth Entrepreneur Magazine: More Profit
Business and Magazines & Newspapers
App
"Get FREE FOR LIFE by Subscribing Now!" As in always absolutely free. Get battle hardened...
