“Firestarter” (2022) is a remake of the 1984 film adaptation of the Stephen King novel and Blumhouse Productions’ latest flick. After mom (Sydney Lemmon) and dad (Zac Efron) meet-cute in college while being guinea pigs for MK Ultra type lab experiments, the McGees have Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong), who literally gets hot when bothered. When her powers get triggered, the family ends up back on DSI’s radar (the Department of Scientific intelligence) and risk becoming lab rats again.

I grade movies on a curve. I did not come expecting high art or even an entertaining movie. I started at zero and awarded points as it pleased me. I enjoy Blumhouse films because they pack a lot of bang for their buck. For the faithful who complain about “Firestarter” taking liberties with the novel and first film adaptation, shut up! The title says Firestarter. Did you get a Firestarter? Yes! Done! For less than $7, I’m a happy camper. I was promised a Firestarter, and they delivered one and more! I have not seen the original since my childhood when I would watch horror movies on WPIX in Manhattan and maybe that distance helps to not bring preconceived notions of how this movie should play out. Also anyone who hires horror legend John Carpenter to be one of three contributors to the score deserves respect for good taste.

The “Firestarter” opening credits provide a brilliant backstory to Charlie’s parents and the experiments and reminded me of “Banshee Chapter” (2013), which I adored. The sequence has found footage elements from video recordings of the experiments. It provides additional backstory to the McGees before their experiments and explains why they may be ideal subjects. Also the font is retro, which is a nice shoutout to the aesthetic of the original.

I saw “The Predator” (2018), and I got kids and jokes. “Kin” (2018) had a kid, sexual situations, but pulled punches when it came to a child wielding powers. “Firestarter” has no such reservations. Charlie is closer to the Children of the Corn or evil Superman in “Brightburn” (2019) than the adorable incarnation that Hollywood royalty Drew Barrymore, who gave the remake her stamp of approval, played decades ago. It does not matter whether Charlie is good or evil. She is powerful and a child. Her morality is askew and getting lessons on the run exacerbates situations. The film is not afraid to toy with the idea that she is a budding serial killer because of a lethal combination of genetics and environment. When her dad gives her a lesson on responsibility, while devoid of malice, her solo application of his theories is terrifying. The film is unafraid of toying with the idea that Charlie is terrifying and will embrace her powers.

I loved the denouement because it came up with enough unexpected twists and raised the stakes, so Charlie felt as if she was in danger even as she was becoming unstoppable. It was also a gorgeous set piece with red floors in DSI’s corridors and some nice camerawork capturing the brutal spiral staircase with an oval window to the sky.

“Firestarter” also knew when to pull back. While Charlie never pulls any punches against adults, her actual trigger is bullies, but the film does not waste its good will on murdering children. The film gives Charlie just enough judgment to not turn her into a prepubescent Carrie yet turn the tables against her tormentors. It gives an innocent “Buffy” vibe to her plight-the universal problem of mean kids and wanting the underdog to teach them a lesson. This impulse makes us root for her even when she is disturbing. It also evoked the suburb scene from Ava DuVernay’s “A Wrinkle in Time” (2018). 

While I wished that Charlie’s mom had put up more of a fight, “Firestarter” gave viewers an opportunity to see her do her thing when facing off against Rainbird (Michael Greyeyes) and leaving him with a haunting spark to his conscience. I wish that the film spent more time with Mama McGee, but it is the one way that the film stays faithful to the novel.

While George C. Scott is a thespian, Greyeyes is no slouch and as a Native American actor, he gets to reclaim a villain’s motivation that was a bit cringey in retrospect. He was the best part of “Woman Walks Ahead” (2017), and he fills in the scripts’ plot holes with his body language. He conveys a nuanced mix of collective conscience, amoral impulse and acceptance that makes his emotional journey in the story more credible on screen than it feels in the mind. He also grounds the film in historicity of the US experimenting on minorities. I need a YouTuber to analyze and explain the décor of his home because it had significance, but went by too quickly.

I live a fairly Zak Efron free life, and if “Firestarter” is my first time seeing and remembering him, then he made a good impression. I enjoyed the changes that they made to his character, especially the physical sign from the strain of using his powers. The McGee family felt more cautious and rationally paranoid than I recall in the original. Efron’s physicality conveyed a habit of using his powers, but also the price of wielding them. Efron would make a better Morbius than Jared Leto. He has an innate vulnerable vibe to act as cover for his extraordinariness that could have transferred and elevated the scientist turned vamp. When he and Wanda Maximoff tilt their necks, expect trouble!

Original RoboCop’s Kurtwood Smith, best known as the curmudgeon father on “That 70’s Show,” has a memorable cameo as Charlie’s granddad in spirit warning DSI Captain Jane Hollister (Gloria Reuben) to kill Charlie. (What was that colored grain that he was playing with? Powdered sugar?) 

I am always happy to see Reuben. She has a gentle voice and a pretty face so seeing her as a villain who fancies herself a hero feels against type though it is not her first rodeo wearing a gray/black hat. Reuben stumbles when she aims to be intimidating by looming over Charlie’s zaddy in the cell from “Ex Machina” (2014) and ends up being physically awkward, but works best in tight close ups as she projects flashes of her character’s true intent on her face. Does she live up to Martin Sheen’s rendition of the character? No, otherwise I have no problem with the gender bending. The character tries to fool people that she is different from her predecessor, but she is just as power hungry just better at PR.

The reimagining of Irv (John Beasley), the Good Samaritan who helps the McGees, was the most uneven part of “Firestarter” and made the middle drag. Has anyone checked up on Essi? I understand that changing his role helps to alter how the conflict between Charlie and DSI gets resolved, but it could have also been accomplished by omitting Irv’s story entirely. Irv and Charlie have a “Sixth Sense” heartwarming moment akin to Haley Joel Osment’s character tear-inducing scene with Toni Collette as his onscreen mom. Through no fault of the actors’, it does not land, and some brutal editing should have been done. Then the film could have fleshed out the denouement a bit more—why have so many cells in the DSI building, but no people in them—or spent more time with the parents raising her and disagreeing about how to address Charlie’s powers. 

The denouement left room for a sequel or even a series, which I would happily watch. This film paints Charlie as a vigilante origin story who must rely on herself against the government. She learns the lesson early when she must face abuse at school alone and sees authority as only coming down on her, not the ones who lit her fuse.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

I love the twists that Charlie’s parents always had powers that the drug just amplified, and Charlie has more of her parents’ powers and pyrokinesis than in the original! The denouement was worth my time and the price of admission. Who does not prefer bleeding eyes over nosebleeds!?! Charlie lit herself on fire to make a point! Why do critics consider these moments boring?!? The scene in the car with the agent was devastating because the film gives us just enough background for us to remember her dad’s lesson, but in the worst way possible. If any purists claim that they were not hyped when men in silver fire-resistant suits faced off against Charlie, then they are too jaded to appreciate movies. Also DSI developing contacts to protect them from being open to mind control was an unexpected scientific twist on the spooky eyes of The True Knot from “Doctor Sleep” (2019). 

Rainbird gets revenge against DSI by luring Charlie to the building using her father’s voice in her head. When Rainbird accepts Charlie’s judgment, it is a powerful moment between Greyeyes and Armstrong that makes the final scene more plausible though still unbelievable. At that point, he proved that he had her back, but I’m not sure if it is enough of a pass for killing her parents and speeding up the homicidal process. On the other hand, she is a tired kid and wants to rest so another dude with powers is not a bad bet to keep the real monsters away. I want to see them in a series fucking shit up as vigilantes on the run from the shady government! If we are seeing Charlie on the offense after a day of training, what will she be like in a week, a month, a year?!? Come on! There is so much potential.

As a cat advocate, I’m tired of films not understanding cat behavior. A wary cat would never have allowed Charlie to come near enough to them to have to resort to scratching. Butt down and running would be the appropriate move. Also it is clear that the experiment did a moral number on Zaddy McGee and Charlie if they thought that the best way to put a cat out of their misery was MORE FIRE! Spending more time with the mother could have teased out this theme more.