Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

pabald9480 I wasn't a fan of the original movie, despite liking Drew Barrymore. However, when I saw a basic cable channel was doing this, I was interested instantly, and after starting the two part-er , with the fitting explosive title sequence, my interest just increased, so I watched it. I hadn't seen Malcolm McDowell in much yet, but Dennis Hopper I already knew very well, firstly, from Speed. The second part followed more of the tradition of Carrie and unwilling fire setting. The first part was a mixture of flashbacks: George C Scott did a good John Rainbird, but M M D, I felt was more convincing as the villainous J R.) displaying the Shop's devious agenda, plus an attempted love interest for Charlie.One thing that has stayed with me for many years, is a quote/ monologue by John Rainbird, that's listed on here, and I've tried asking about its origin, and it sounds like a paraphrased Bible verse, and if so, which one?I can't seem to access the F A Q to ask about this, any ideas? Cause it sure seems like it, quoted by a villain or not.

Filipe Neto When I found this movie I thought it was a sequel to "Firestarter", 1984, a movie that adapted a Stephen King story. However, after watching, I had doubts about whether to consider it a sequel or a remake. My doubts rest on the natural comparison between both and the realization that this film has broken any relation to the events of its predecessor. However, it is undoubtedly intended to function as a sequel. The whole structure of the script fails because it was based on real quicksand, and this ends up ruining the film. Malcolm McDowell is the most famous name of this production, having done a reasonable performance, according to what was requested and the garbage that he has received to work. The remaining actors did what they could but could not save the movie from being disastrous. More disastrous still: the protagonist, who dominated relatively well her power in the first film, is now reduced to a teenager who sets things on fire during sex. Is it some kind of pun with the expression "to have fire under the skirt"? Very funny...

Talan Silva I was really disappointed with the boring start to the movie to the boring end of it too. I was expecting a better cast too, like the original cast from the first movie. Despite loving Drew Barrymore's acting in the first FireStarrer I thought I would give this a shot. The storyline made NO sense, going back to the first movie and not exactly being accurate left me very annoyed as it could have been done heaps better. The special effects are pitiful, cheap and nasty just like the acting. 2/10- one of the worst "Stephen King inspired" movies. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew his novel would be such a terrible film.

AaronCapenBanner Marguerite Moreau takes over the role of "Charlie" McGee from Drew Barrymore, playing the now grown woman who is still on the run from sinister government forces determined to use her mental fire making abilities for their own ends, especially John Rainbird(now played by Malcolm McDowall) who has continued his experiments with a group of boys, whom he plans on using to take over the world...Strange sequel foolishly tries rewriting the climatic events of the first, in order to explain how Rainbird is still alive, despite his apparent demise there. Story goes on far too long, and isn't at all interesting; Though both Moreau and McDowall try their best, this misconceived sequel falls totally flat.