K.R.'s Movie Review

The movie Firestarter was interesting. But that is it. Taking into account all the limitations of special affects and the impossibility of taking every scene in the book and bringing it to the screen, the deep message of the book was still hopelessy lost. What happened to the Manders' house burning down? What happened to the rescue of Charlie in the rest area? Why didn't Charlie run away when John first came into her room? Why did Irv accompany Charlie to the New York Times (not a great pick to bring her story to)? These simple yet profound scenes were neccessary to develop the characters in the novel, and with out them and other critical scenes, those developments were shallower. The audience couldn't connect to the confusion and the fright of Mrs. Manders because they never showed her frightened. What was there to be scared about? Compared to the book, she had it easy. And how could we really grasp the desperation Andy felt when he was chasing after Charlie? He knew exactly where she was - Joan's house. There was no mad chase down the highway. When Charlie stayed in the room when John came in, we didn't get the picture of a little girl pining for her father and refusing to do anything like we did in the book. There was little to no reaction on my part to her at all. She was just sitting on the couch. And when she was brought to the New York Times, we didn't see her as a self-reliant, strong girl, we saw her as a dependent, weak, helpless babe. That is not Charlie, at least the Charlie that King intended her to be.

A few other scenes that were understandably left out because of the technology, but certainly could be put in if making the film today were both Charlie and Andy's dreams while being held by "the Shop". While I certainly missed those scences, it is easy to see why they were left out.

As for the characters themselves, they were pretty good, except for Cap and Rainbird. Cap was too conciencious for how I envisioned him. I thought that Cap was a nice guy, but that his loyalty was strayed - he had joined the wrong side, and now he was too far gone to get out of it. But he wasn't evil. He honestly thought he would be helping everyone by finding out the truth about Lot 6 and Charlie. But in the movie, he reminds me of the nice guy that everyone likes, even his enemies. But he isn't supposed to be well liked. I think the biggest problem is that there is no character development for him. We don't see him slamming the phone down after the Manders' farm incident, we don't see his secretary and his wife die of cancer, we don't see his ricochet with the snakes and golf. Those things are what gave us the best insight into his character, and they're gone.

Rainbird is a totally different story. First of all, Rainbird was in too many wrong places at the wrong time. He was not supposed to know anything about Lot 6, yet there he is in the office with Wanlass and Cap. This undermines his subversive and sneaky character. We also lose the scene where he is looking for death in Wanlass' eyes just before he kills him. These are perhaps the two most critical pieces of information that is essential to figuring out who Rainbird really is. There were so many instances where the writers of Rainbird's character so disappointed me, it isn't worth getting into. They took a wonderful, beautifully written character, and changed it into something ludicrious.

I was not disappointed with Charlie's power though. I thought the hair blowing was a little much, but not bad for Hollywood. The fire in the barn, the soldiers' shoes, all of the scenes where she lit something were tremendous. Even using the limited special effects, that part of the movie was perfect.

My general complaint about the whole movie is the fact that they sped everything up. Andy and Charlie stayed at Gunthers' for a week maybe, no where near the months in the book. And the fact that Andy organized their escape in two minutes. I thought the speed with which they wipped through the parts contrived and detrimental. It seemed like they were filming in two days what should have happened in 2 years. There were so many tiny details that were lost this way that all that remained was an empty shell of a potentially great movie.

Back to The Movie vs. The Book