Is this movie even an official sequel? I ask so because this movie totally ignores events from the previous movie and simply blatantly even alters things.This movie is filled with some flashbacks, that however don't make any sense when you have already seen the first movie. It completely ignores some fact from the first movie as well as actual moments that we did see happening. Who knows, perhaps this is all more faithful to the actual Stephen King novel but just don't call your movie "Firestarter 2: Rekindled" when you are taking a totally different approach with the story and completely ignore the stuff from the earlier 1984 movie."Firestarter" had a pretty much closed ending. All of the bad guys died and Charlie McGee eventually ended up well. But guess what, apparently the bad guy didn't die at all. He just altered. He now suddenly looks like Malcolm McDowell with a half burned face, instead of George C. Scott, who played the villain John Rainbird in the first movie. But if you have seen the first movie you know that it's pretty much a solid fact that there is no way the character could still be alive, or at least could definitely not look as 'well' as Malcolm McDowell did. It reminded me of the way they brought back the Durant character in all of the Darkman sequels. Couldn't they simply come up with a fresh new villain?But this is the foremost problem with this movie; it's a sequel without any imagination or good ideas. Here you have a movie in which your main character has the ability to put everything on fire with her telekinetic powers, as well as a bunch of other persons with X-Men like powers. Plenty of awesome ingredients and potential to play around with you would imaging but strangely enough the only thing they could come up with was letting the main character accidentally put stuff on fire every time she was getting too excited during sex. So great, she can never have an orgasm. An excellent subject for a science-fiction/thriller, you guys!They really didn't come up with anything good or exciting, which is really the most disappointing thing about this movie and its story. But I still don't really know either what the main plot was supposed to be all about. Why does John Rainbird want to create super humans? And why does he need Charlie McGee for that so badly? What makes her so exceptional? Even though the movie is about 3 hours long (it can also be aired as a mini-series) nothing is really ever explained well enough, which also makes this movie a real unsatisfying one by the end, as well as just a pointless sequel and movie in general.Also really don't understand why Dennis Hopper showed up in this. He plays a real boring character, that also really doesn't add anything to the story and could easily had been left out. It also would had been nice if they actually cast someone who somewhat looked like Drew Barrymore, who played the main lead in the movie but instead they casted brunette Marguerite Moreau. The acting in this movie was not all that bad though, which probably prevented it from ever becoming a truly bad and ridicules one.No, I really don't want to sound like I completely hated it. It's definitely watchable all, in the long run. You probably have seen way worse than this movie but a better story should had really made this movie at least somewhat remotely exciting and original to watch.You're really way better off watching just and only the first movie, which wasn't even that great of a movie in the first place either.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Could've been better, but could've been worse. I'd say my interest in and longtime hope for a sequel to "Firestarter" made me enjoy this film. I wasn't totally disappointed, but my biggest pet peeves were that the flashbacks didn't match up with the events of the first film (Manders Farm, Vicky and Andy's deaths) and the fact that Rainbird was supposed to be dead.Could've been a lot worse though and for a miniseries this wasn't bad. A lot of the new characters make you wonder, though, and I could see why Drew Barrymore decided not to do this miniseries. Marguerite Moreau had some big shoes to fill and she didn't do too badly imo.I wonder though if things would have been different if this had been planned as a feature-film instead of a miniseries.

This movie was nothing but an excuse for violence. I'm glad they created their own flashbacks because it separates this trash from the original (book and movie). In the original, Lot 6 was nothing but a variation of a hallucinogen that went terribly warped. Rainbird was nothing but a hit-man with a fascination about death. He didn't care about Charlie except for what he imagined he would be able to see in her eyes when she died.In this trash they made Rainbird the head honcho of the Lot 6 program and stated that it was all on purpose. The whole storyline made no sense. They managed to get a couple of big names who must cringe when they see how the movie came out.What a waste of time. I missed perfectly good reruns to watch this. I stuck with it, hoping it would get better but it only got worse.

A Minor SpoilerIn the 80's, Stephen King's Firestarter was a successful movie in Brazil, with the lovely Drew Barrymore. However, this sequel is horrible: bad actors, senseless screenplay and a waste of unnecessary special effects. The name of Malcom McDowell in the credits is a synonym of a bad movie. Remove the wonderful 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Cat People' and 'Star Trek Generation' from his extensive filmography, and what rests? Danny Nucci keeps a dummy expressionless face along the whole story, no matter what he is doing. Charlie (Marguerite Moreau) seems to lose control of her power only when having sex. And why destroy the whole town in the last scene? Wouldn't it be enough to kill her enemy John Rainbird? Dennis Hopper keeps his arms down in the most of his scenes. Does he have a problem with his arms? My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "O Jogo dos Espíritos" ("The Spirit Game")