X

Released: March 2022

Director: Ti West

Run Time: 106 Minutes

Rated R

Distributor: A24/Lionsgate Studios

Genre: Horror

Cast:
Mia Goth: Maxine
Jenna Ortega: Lorraine
Brittany Snow: Bobby-Lynne
Kid Cudi: Jackson
Martin Henderson: Wayne
Owen Campbell: RJ
Stephen Ure: Howard

It’s one thing to get excited for a movie.  That’s what marketing is for.  The problem with hype is that when a movie gets hyped so much, there’s no possible way that the film could live up to expectations.  Rarely, movies can better than what they’re hyped up to be, but more often than not, the hype does the film a disservice.  This is why I prefer movies and shows to be UNDER-hyped.  At least slightly.  From MY perspective that helps people keep their expectations in check.  Word of mouth can be and usually is more important than trailers or posters.  Let’s face it, there’ve been a lot of movies that didn’t live up to the hype.  Some of the recent Star Wars projects come to mind.  Some comedies don’t live up to the hype, and the same happens with horror movies.  One of the most recent horror movies that got a lot of hype from reviewers and critics was a little called X.  People called this the return of one of horror’s most underrated directors after a decade: Ti West.  Is it, though?  I don’t know.  I’m not at all familiar with Ti West’s work.  So, the question seems to be: Is X the horror movie that everybody says it is?  Not even close.

X follows a group of film-makers who set out to make a pornographic film that will make them famous.  They find an old farm that is home to an elderly couple in the middle of nowhere.  Unbeknownst to the elderly couple, but knownst to us, this farm is the ideal location for their film.  Over the course of 24 hours, the elderly couple discover what’s going on and things get really bloody.  The interesting here is very interesting.  It’s Zack and Miri Make A Porno meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  There’s just a little problem.  Nothing happens for the first hour of the movie.  Yeah, there’s a bunch of sex and some creepy shots of the old couple, but it’s a slog to get through.  I’d be the first to enjoying a good slow burn of a movie.  But this is supposed to be a slasher flick.  The slashing doesn’t start until the 58-minute mark.  Most slashers don’t wait very long to get going, but this takes forever.  The movie starts getting good at the 1-hour mark, but the payoff almost isn’t worth it, for what you have to sit through to get there.

The huge part of the reason why this movie was a slog to get through is because the characters are mostly unlikable.  If you’re going to try and make a different kind of slasher flick, you need to develop the characters so that the audience can connect with them.  I felt no connection with these bozos.  The only interesting characters were the old couple.  That’s not a very interesting dichotomy.  That said, the acting here is actually pretty good for what they’ve been given.  The star of the show is Mia Goth as Maxine.  Her character is the most likable of the bunch.  Jenna Ortega has been making a name for herself in horror movies like Scream 2022The Babysitter: Killer Queen, and Studio 666.  She’s well on her way to becoming the scream queen of her generation.  She plays Lorraine, the boom operator.  Again, however, the character isn’t particularly interesting or likable.

There is stuff to like about this movie.  There really is.  First of all, the cinematography is absolutely incredible.  Their choice of camera and film style gives the film the 70s vibe that they’re going for.  When the blood flows, and it does flow, it’s brutal.  There is some pretty decent gore here.  There’s a kill involving a gator that was incredibly intense.  In fact, that particular kill was a throwback to an earlier film from the 70s called Eaten Alive.  There are a lot of influences on display here, with Texas Chainsaw Massacre being an obvious one.  And to be fair to Ti West, at least he went for practical effects and prosthetics making the gore looking more realistic. The KNG Effects Group and Tom Savini would be proud.  For a horror movie that some people claim to be “elevated” horror, there’s nothing elevated here.  When you look at A24’s catalog of horror movies, most of them are LEAGUES above what Ti West has done here.  Hereditary, The Witch, The Lighthouse, Midsommar.  THOSE are elevated horror movies.  This is nothing of the sort.

I’m not going to say that this is the worst horror movie I’ve seen.  It definitely isn’t, nor do I hate it.  It has some things going for it that I really do like, but the overall package is a complete mixed bag.  Yeah, the first hour is all sexed up with T&A, but outside of that, the first hour is boring.  After that is when it starts getting good, but by the time it does, the movie’s nearly over.  I don’t know what Ti West was really going for, but if it was an attempt to do an “elevated” slasher movie, he failed.  I’ve been a huge fan of A24’s horror movies for a while now, and feels like a huge step backwards.  There was also an element of humor to this movie that I didn’t really find funny, just sad.  It’s not the worst, but it’s not great, either.

Top Gun: Maverick

Released: May 2022

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Run Time: 131 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Genre: Action

Cast:
Tom Cruise: Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell
Jennifer Connelly: Penny Benjamin
Miles Teller: Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw
Val Kilmer: Adm. Tom “Iceman” Kazansky
Bashir Salahuddin: WO-1 Bernie “Hondo” Coleman
John Hamm: Adm. Beau “Cyclone” Simpson
Charles Parnell: Adm. Solomon “Warlock” Bates
Monica Barbaro: Lt. Natasha “Phoenix” Trace
Lewis Pullman: Lt. Robert “Bob” Floyd

When a studio makes a sequel to a very successful movie like say, Indiana Jones or Star Wars, they generally want a sequel made within 2-5 years of its release.  It makes sense, from a business perspective.  You need to strike while the iron’s hot.  What that means is that you want to start in on a sequel while people are still talking about the original film.  When people start hearing that a sequel’s coming, they’re going to be more excited about it.  That ups the potential windfall that the studio will make with it’s follow-up film/s.  There’s been a small trend of studios making a sequel to movie IPs that have been dormant for decades.  There are two examples of why this could’ve been a problem for Top Gun: Maverick.  Blade Runner and Independence Day.  The first Blade Runner was a classic science fiction movie that eventually people responded to, but it bombed at the box office.  Independence Day was a sci-fi action flick that did extremely well at the box office.  People loved it.  Blade Runner 2049 was a sequel that came out 32 years after the original film.  It bombed.  Nobody went to see it, because nobody was interested in it.  It could’ve been because of the bad marketing, but for whatever reason, 2049 tanked.  It’s a great movie, and it deserved better, but it just didn’t happen.  Independence Day: Resurgence came out literally 20 years after the original film.  Nobody was asking for it, and while there are a multitude of reasons why it wasn’t very good, a big reason was because it wasn’t relevant.  Nobody had talked about these movies for years, and all of a sudden a new movie shows up?  People get skeptical for a reason.  So, does Top Gun: Maverick suffer from these issues?  No.  In fact, a movie like this could’ve only been NOW instead of years ago or in the future.  I’ll explain why.

Tom Cruise reprises his iconic role of Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a naval aviator whose unorthodox methods made him a legend in the flight community.  As the movie starts, we find Maverick as a test pilot for the navy’s most advanced jets.  Before he can be run out of the navy, he’s brought back to the Top Gun school to train recent Top Gun graduates for an upcoming mission, and Maverick is the only aviator who has the experience to help them succeed.  One of the graduates, Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw is the son of Goose, Maverick’s co-pilot from the original movie.  Goose was killed in a freak accident and Rooster has never really forgiven Maverick for that and other reasons.  As an avowed fan of the original Top GunMaverick is a better film in every single way.  The original was absolutely a product of its time, and as a result, not all of it holds very well.  The “character development” wasn’t that great and the overall product was very…macho.  The story-telling in this film is so much better, because it focuses more on the characters and we get to see them evolve, especially Tom Cruise’s character.  This a movie about building a team and it just works on so many levels.  There’s an emotional core to this movie that I was not expecting.  There are some real emotional moments throughout the film that got me choking up a bit.  An emotional impact from a movie like Top Gun?  Are you crazy?  Yeah.  It’s fantastic.

Seeing Tom Cruise reprise the role that really put him on the map is fantastic.  Say what you will about the man himself, but he puts 110 percent into EVERYTHING that he does.  He is dedicated to his craft, and to see him evolve his character of Pete Mitchell the way he does is awesome.  The character’s still got some of that swagger and cockiness, but it’s been tempered by years of experience.  The real stand-out of the show, though, is Miles Teller as Rooster.  Miles Teller is an extraordinary actor in his own way, but the dynamic he brings to the relation between Maverick and Rooster is intense.  I’ll say it, Rooster is the spitting image of Goose from the original film.  The relationship between Maverick and Rooster is what gives the film its heart.  If there’s an issue with the movie, it’s that I didn’t really buy into the relationship between Maverick and Jennifer Connelly’s Penny.  It’s not awful, but it doesn’t bring the same energy that Kelly McGillis brought in the first movie.  That’s not to dig on Jennifer’s performance at all, I liked her as Penny, but there wasn’t enough there to really get invested in.  Everybody does a fantastic job.  Jon Hamm as admiral in charge brings real commanding presence to the film.  The one thing I really loved about this movie is how they handled Val Kilmer and his character.  It’s one of the most touching moments in the film and is incredibly respectful of the character and the actor, considering the struggles that Val Kilmer’s been going through.

Top Gun: Maverick is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen.  It’s not just the action, but from a visual standpoint, it’s a gorgeous movie.  The SOUND is also what really makes this movie standout.  When the jets started taking off, the theater was rumbling, and I wasn’t in one of those special theaters that the moving seats.  They don’t make movies like this anymore.  They really don’t.  The logistics of what went into this picture is mind-boggling.  For the most part, what you see is what you actually get.  When you see the pilots making faces in the jest, that’s NOT green-screen.  They are up there doing that.  The reactions are real.  Tom Cruise made sure that the action sequences in this movie were authentic and they are.  It FEELS real, because it is.  Yeah, there are some CGI moments here and there, but most of it’s practical.  The original movie had really awesome flight sequences that nobody had seen or done before.  Maverick just took to a whole new level.  Tom Cruise even had the actors learn cinematography so they could have the best shots in those jets.  I’ve never seen or heard of anything like that before.

When I said that NOW was the perfect for this particular movie to come out, I wasn’t kidding.  There is a moment early on in the film where a character calls Maverick’s aviators a dying breed, with drones taking the place of actual pilots.  It IS the direction that we are headed, but as Maverick pointed out: Not today.  The need for fighter pilots is constant, and in this current political climate, a state of readiness needs to be maintained.  Drones don’t have the instincts or emotions of fighter pilots, both of which are incredibly necessary to fly these expensive machines.  So, unlike a lot of films of this type, Top Gun: Maverick is incredibly relevant.  One other thing I should mention is that the music from the original film was outstanding.  It was a great soundtrack with Harold Faltermeyer’s anthem blaring throughout the movie.  Kenny Loggins’ Danger Zone is iconic.  There would be riots in the streets if the new movie didn’t include that song at the very least.  It’s a part of Top Gun’s DNA.  The music for the new movie is just as awesome, if updated a bit for modern audiences.  Hans Zimmer teams up with Faltermeyer and Lady Gaga to create a soundtrack that is both thrilling and emotion.  Lady Gaga’s Hold my Hand represents everything that Top Gun: Maverick is.  She did a bang-up job here.

Top Gun: Maverick is a hell of a start to the summer movie season.  Again, this is a movie that HAS to be seen in theaters with a crowd.  It’s an event movie.  While I’m not going to say that it’s perfect, it isn’t, but the nitpicks I have are just that: Nitpicks.  This is one of the best movies of its kind.  Honestly, I truly we’ll never see anything  quite like it again.  Tom Cruise, Joseph Kosinski, and writer Christopher McQuarrie have put together a sequel that not only bests the original in every way, but it also stands on its own two feet.  You don’t need to see the original to appreciate this one, but there Easter eggs in here that fans of the 1986 movie will absolutely appreciate.  Top Gun: Maverick may be 3 years late, but it was well worth it.  This is one of my favorite movies of the decade thus far.  Do I recommend it?  Hell, yes!  It’s fun, emotional, thrilling, and just plain great.  It’s one of Tom Cruise’s best movies to date.

 

Halo: My Thoughts

This is not going to be the traditional review that I normally do on this blog.  First of all, we’re dealing with a TV/Streaming show.  Unlike my Game of Thrones reviews, I’m going to condense this first season of Halo into one post.  What is Halo, exactly?  Halo is a video-game franchise which debuted on Microsoft’s original XBOX console back in 2002.  Halo was a launch title that helped sell millions of consoles.  It’s a science fiction first-person shooter that takes place in the year 2552.  It involves a war between humanity’s UNSC(United Nations Space Command) and an alliance of extreme religious alien fanatics called the Covenant, whose goal is to wipe humanity from the face of the galaxy.  The Covenant believe that a ring-shaped world called Halo would aid them in destroying humanity, when in truth said Halo was a superweapon with a far more sinister purpose.  The UNSC employs a group of genetically modified super-soldiers called Spartans to fight the Covenant.  The lead Spartan in this fight is called Master Chief.  Paired with a sophisticated AI named Cortana, Master Chief leads the battle against the Covenant.  Story-wise, the game is incredibly interesting, and it gets even better with Halo 2 and 3.  As a gamer myself, I didn’t get into Halo until the show started, and even then I was unsure.  So, at that time, a collection of the first 6 games of Halo was available on PC under the title of Halo: Master Chief Collection.  I got hooked pretty quickly.  When the show was announced back in 2013 by Steven Spielberg himself, people got excited.  Not just because this was an adaptation of their favorite franchise, but because it could be one of the best videogame-to-movie adaptations ever.  Well, here I sit having watched all 9 episodes of the first season of Halo.  It’s a promise that remains unfulfilled.

As a relative newcomer to the entire Halo franchise, I don’t find myself hating this show.  I know there are hard-core fans out there that were expecting great things, but didn’t get them.  But I also know that there were fans that hated the show long before it started airing on Paramount Plus.  THAT group, I don’t understand.  Hating something before you’ve actually seen it strikes me as very counter-productive.  Now, for those that have seen the show and don’t like it: I get it.  I understand why you don’t.  I didn’t spend 20 years being a fan of Halo, so I don’t have that kind of investment in the franchise.  But even as a new Halo fan, there’s a lot of problems with this show.  Halo suffers from the exact some problem that plagued so many videogame-based movies:  A lack of understanding of the source material.  The problems started when the showrunners came out and admitted that while they briefly looked at the games and the spin-off novels, they decided to go in another direction for the show.  Is it wrong for the show not to focus on the games’ storylines?  Not particularly, but it would’ve been a lot easier to do so.  Look, deviating from the source material is almost required in EVERY adaptation.  You can NEVER do a straight adaptation and expect it to work the same way as the source.  Different mediums require different approaches.  The games had the players being directly involved with the storytelling by inhabiting the role of Master Chief as the main character.

Let’s talk about what DOES work in this show.  First of all, it LOOKS like Halo.  From sets and models to character designs, this has Halo written all over it.  Even Master Chief’s design looked like it was ripped straight from the game.  The ships look great, and the aliens look pretty damned menacing.  The weapon designs are pretty much spot on.  For a show that was made for about 90 million bucks, it looks really damn good.  The guy they got to play Master Chief was a pretty good choice.  Pablo Schreiber is pretty damned good.  He’s got the physicality down and he has the right attitude as the legendary Spartan.  I also have to give credit to the actors that play the rest of Silver Team, particularly Kate Kennedy as Kai.  I think the showrunners got the right folks to play the Spartans.  For the most part, the acting is pretty solid across the board.  I really like the dynamic that occurs between Master Chief and Catherine Halsey, the person responsible for the creation of the Spartan program.  The show does take things from the book about how Spartans are…recruited.  So, yeah, the acting is really good for what the actors have been given.  They even got Jen Tayler, the original voice for Cortana to come back and voice the character for the show.  It’s a pretty good call back to the games.  The action is also pretty damned good.  In fact, I was surprised at how brutal the first episode was in terms of its violence.  People got blown to pieces.  The best part?  You could see what was happening, which makes it better.  The best action moments happened in Episodes 5 and 9.  It was literally like something right out of the games.  It was spectacular.

Sadly, as with any show just starting out, the first season’s always going to have it’s stumbles.  Halo stumbles quite a bit here.  First of all, the show has Master Chief taking off his helmet…a lot.  He does take off his helmet in the games, but we never really see his face.  It’s always obfuscated by something in the way.  I guess the reason is that so we can have more of a connection with Master Chief.  Here’s the thing, though.  We really don’t.  Take a character like Judge Dredd from the comics or the 2012 movie.  If he doesn’t have his helmet on, his face is hidden in shadows or blocked by something.  There’s a reason for that.  Judge Dredd was never meant to be a three dimensional character.  He was as he was meant to be: The face of the law.  In Halo, Master Chief is supposed to represent humanity’s best fighting force, so there is an element of mystery to the character that should’ve been maintained, but wasn’t.  On the Covenant side, we have Makee, a human woman who was captured by the Covenant when she was a child.  This is where the showrunners lack of understanding the source material comes into focus.  The Covenant NEVER took human prisoners.  EVER.  For them to take this one girl captive because she has a special quality makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.  On the human side, the UNSC is portrayed as this oppressive and unethical machine, yet incredibly incompetent at the same time.  Why?  I mean, I get that every science fiction story has to have some form of corruption within certain government elements, but it didn’t need to be THIS blatant.  The UNSC came off as villainous more often than not.  That’s bad writing.  Don’t even get me started on the character of Kwan Ha.  I don’t hate the actress, I hate the character.  The character is a snotty, whiny little brat that never should have been in the show.  It would’ve been one thing if she was written better, but she wasn’t.  If the intent was to have the audience sympathize with the character, they failed.  Nobody likes her.  Even the shows staunch defenders don’t like her.  I will admit, against my better judgement, that her final episode in this season was pretty good, but the focus never should’ve been on her.

As a matter of fact, focus is probably this show’s biggest issue.  It’s all over the place.  When the show isn’t focused on the conflict between humanity and the Covenant, the show grinds to a halt.  Whenever we deal with Kwan and Soren on the planet of Madrigal, it feels out of place.  I understand that there’s more in the Halo universe than just Master Chief and the UNSC, but the entire subplot of Kwan’s quest for independence from the UNSC feels forced, and it doesn’t add anything to the overall universe, at least not until Kwan’s final episode.  Even then, it feels incredibly tacked on and superfluous.  A big complaint that a lot of people have been having is Master Chief not having his helmet on for most of the show.  I’ll be honest, I don’t actually have an issue with that.  What the show does with Master Chief is the problem.  Apparently, he’s one of two people that can activate certain alien artifacts by touching them.  The other is Makee, the human Covenant person.  Why is this the case?  The show never answers that question.  Also, what they do with Cortana is…bizarre.  In the games, Cortana is an AI that chose to pair with Master Chief because of his intelligence, his humanity, and his leadership.  The relationship between Master Chief and Cortana develops a lot over the course of 4 games.  It’s a very compelling relationship, even though it’s purely platonic, but it works.  In the show, she’s used as a spying tool initially for Dr. Halsey.  I don’t like the way that Cortana was handled here.  It’s great hearing the original voice actor play the role again, but the writing is just…wrong.

The pacing is uneven.  The pilot episode started off pretty strong with a brutal action sequence, but then it slows to a crawl by the time the episode ends.  Episodes 2,3 and 4 are slow.  In fact, some of the episodes in this show are nothing more than filler.  Truth be told, though, I don’t necessarily mind the slow bits, especially when it focuses on Master Chief and the UNSC’s political issues.  That’s very interesting to me and I think the show delivers on that part, but it doesn’t really propel the show forward.  In fact, Halo doesn’t really start picking up steam until Episode 5.  That’s half-way through the season.  That’s not good for an action-oriented science fiction show.  The writers also have Master Chief doing things that he really shouldn’t be doing…like having sex with a Covenant spy.  Yes, that happened.  No, it’s not awesome.  It’s antithetical to who and what Master Chief is.  Also, for a show that’s called Halo, there’s no Halo.  It’s glimpsed at in visions, but they don’t actually go there.  I guess they’re saving that for season 2.

There’s a lot of problems with Halo.  A lot of it stems from world-building issues, but also questionable writing decisions.  I noticed these things, even as a new fan of the games.  That said, I did find myself enjoying the show for the most part, warts and all.  While the show feels derivative right now, there’s some real potential in this show going forward.  If the showrunners and 343 Industries can clean up a lot of the writing, and refocus the show on the actual human/alien conflict, then Halo will be in a much better place.  I want this show to succeed.  We’ve had very few videogame adaptations that were any good.  Very few.  This could break the curse, IF it’s handled correctly.  That means jettisoning unnecessary characters and subplots, and bringing the show into line with what the franchise is about.  My final thought is this: Halo is a very flawed show with serious pacing and writing issues.  The stuff that works is amazing.  The stuff that doesn’t is painfully apparent.  It’s been very inconsistent, both in terms of episode length and quality.  The episodes that I definitely recommend are 1,5,6,the second half of 8, and 9.

Firestarter(2022)

Released: May 2022

Director: Keith Thomas

Rated R

Run Time: 94 Minutes

Distributor: Universal Studios

Genre: Horror

Cast:
Zach Efron: Andy McGee
Ryan Kiera Armstrong: Charlie McGee
Sydney Lemmon: Vicky McGee
Michael Greyeyes: Rainbird
Gloria Reuben: Captain Hollister
Kurtwood Smith: Dr. Wanless

Adaptations are an extremely tricky thing.  Especially if you’re making the movie based on a book.  There’s a lot of things that you need to juggle with adaptations.  What do you keep in the movie?  What do you jettison?  Not everything that’s in the book can be translated to the big screen.  It usually doesn’t work.  You can’t expect it to, because they are two very different mediums.  There are a lot of adaptations out there that are serviceable.  Some are great, and others are absolutely abysmal.  Lord of the Rings, Shawshank Redemption, War of the Worlds, Dune(2021) and 2000 Leagues Under The Sea are some of the best book-to-movie adaptations ever made.  When you have the right film-maker and writers involved, adaptations can be brilliant.  Otherwise, you end up with movies like Dreamcatcher, The Hobbit, or The Lost World: Jurassic Park.  These movies aren’t very good.  Usually, bad decision-making is involved.  Sadly, I have another butchered adaptation to throw on the pile: This year’s version of Firestarter.

The story of Firestarter involves a young girl with pyrokinetic abilities that’s on the run from a mysterious government organization.  The story is based on a Stephen King novel of the same name, and it’s not a bad story at all.  It’s actually about a young girl and her father that both have extraordinary abilities that don’t want to be exploited by the government.  One of the great things about Stephen King’s stories is that they are always centered around people, so you can connect with them.  This new movie fails on nearly every conceivable level.  I had heard that Firestarter was going to get a day-and-date release.  What that means is that a movie is released on VOD the same time it’s released in theaters.  When the pandemic was in full swing, that was really the only way that studios could get their movies out.  They ended up losing a lot of money, because nobody was going to theaters.  Now, when we see a movie that’s released on VOD and in theaters at the same time, that’s usually for one reason, and one reason alone: The studio has NO faith in that particular movie.  Ladies and gents, here’s a movie that should’ve gone straight to VOD…and that’s how I watched it.  On Peacock.

I want to talk about the good stuff first, because there isn’t a whole lot, but I have to give credit where it’s due.  The acting is, for the most part, pretty good.  Zach Efron plays Andy McGee, young Charlie’s father, and he was pretty convincing as someone who has the ability to take control of people’s minds.  Ryan Kiera Armstrong is the standout performer here as Charlie.  She’s simply fantastic as the young girl who is going through some…issues.  I would imagine YOU would have issues too if you had the ability to set people on fire with your mind.  Outside of those two actors, everything about this movie is a complete disaster.  Firestarter commits one of the greatest sins that a movie can make: It’s BORING.  Sure, when people start using their powers, it gets a little interesting, but the pacing is all over the place.  When it slows down, it slows WAY down.  For a movie that’s an hour and a half long, it feels double that.

While I’m not going to say that the 1984 film was a classic by any means, it really wasn’t, but the film actually followed the plot of the book pretty closely.  This adaptation bares almost NO resemblance to either the book or the original film.  Don’t get me wrong, I understand that some changes have to be made to adapt a book into movie.  That’s fine, but when you start changing certain characters around and giving them powers that they didn’t have in the source material, it becomes in issue.  In the book and the original movie, Charlie only had pyrokinesis.  In this version, she’s inherited her mother’s telekinetic powers and her father’s “push” ability which is to “influence” people.  In the hands of better film-makers and writers, this could’ve been really interesting.  Here, it’s not.  It just comes across as another cheap superhero origin story.  Even one of the villains flat-out tells Charlie that she could be a superhero.  Really?  The mind boggles at the decision-making here.  Oh, let’s also not forget another huge issue that I have with this movie.  For a movie called Firestarter, there’s not a whole lot of fire-starting going on.  Most of the carnage that happens in this movie is off-screen.  While the 1984 movie had it’s issues, it didn’t skimp on the carnage.  Shit exploded and people were set on fire.  It’s like the film-makers were afraid to make this movie as batshit crazy as its concept.  Also, the effects are terrible.  There are some fairly gruesome images, but a lot of it is CGI, and it’s painfully obvious.  It’s clear that they didn’t have the budget to really convey the kind of power that Charlie has.  Even the 2002 Sci-Fi Channel sequel series did more with the concept than this movie.  The climax of the movie is dull as ditchwater, and what they did with Michael Greyeyes’ Rainbird is completely unearned.

So, yeah, I don’t like this movie.  At all.  It’s not just a bad movie, it’s a bad adaptation.  The writing is god-awful, and with the exception of Zach Efron and Ryan Kiera Armstrong, there’s nothing really redeemable about this movie.  The villains are cardboard cut-out government bad guys that we’ve seen a million times before.  The 6 bucks that I paid to get the limited ads deal on Peacock is more than this movie deserves, but I’m getting a lot more bang for my buck, because of the other movies and stuff on that service.  If you want a decent adaption of Stephen King’s Firestarter, stick with the 1984 movie with Drew Barrymore, David Keith, and Martin Sheen.  It’s SOOOO much better.  If you’re curious, you can check out the follow-up sequel Firestarter: Rekindled.  It’s not great, but it’s still better than this stinker.