*A retraction: Stanley Mann would replace Bill Lancaster as the screenwriter. Stanley is known for his screenplays: The Collector, Damian Omen II, and Conan the Destroyer. Bill wrote the first draft and the work resembles "The Thing" in so many ways I wonder how much of the second draft was used and how much was contributed by Mann. This is all conjecture of course but it's strange to me. Universal simply wanted to replace Carpenter with a less expensive auteur, and Bill was replaced along with Carpenter as Bill was notorious for being a late perfectionists regarding his work. Beyond that I find Bill Lancaster to be an interesting, mysterious and somewhat tragic character in horror history. Stanley's work is much more prolific, writing since the 1950s through the late 80s, but he resembles a typical working writer and the fact that most of his credits are co-writer I'm willing to make an educated guess that most of the first draft was used by Lancaster and Mann simply made a few edits. Of course there is no proof of this it is just an observation.
This week mutants, we are starting with a movie from my youth and ending with a remake of that same movie which was released last week. The movie is "Firestarter" based on the novel by Stephen King. To celebrate we will be serving a New England style fish fry.
Firestarter tells the story of a young girl (Charlie) who happens to have been born with the power of pyrokinesis, due to the fact that her parents (Andy and Vicky McGee) were part of an experimental clinical trial while they were in college called "Lot 6." Those involved with the trial were informed that they would be injected with what was considered a mild hallucinogen similar to a less potent version of LSD.
Unfortunately for most, the drug had nasty side effects that killed the majority of the subjects. You know nothing too terrible. Their brains merely turned into soup and leaked out their eyes, ears and nose. Andy and Vicky were immune to these side effects.
Fast forward past the trials and Andy and Vicky have gained powers. Andy can "Push" other people. This is a mild form of brain control where his victims might see a five hundred dollar bill when he gives them a one, or it might help someone stop overeating or quit smoking through pure suggestion, however there are consequences to this power. Minor brain hemorrhages (otherwise known as migraines) happen to Andy every time he uses his power. Andy can be debilitated for up to 48 hours during each migraine episode if he over-extends himself and the migraines have gotten bad enough that blood leaks out of his eyes. This is actually something that can happen to people with severe migraine problems, though it's described in the book and in the movies as something that sounds worse than it is "brain hemorrhages the size of a pin-prick," otherwise known as a migraine. Stephen King turns what is a common ailment into a tragic flaw, a common motif of the writer.
Vicky on the other hand has it pretty easy and possesses the power of telekinesis and can move objects with her mind.
Andy and and Vicky have a child, Charlie. She can set things on fire with her mind, but being a young girl her emotions are volatile and she has trouble controlling her power when she gets angry or emotional.
The original drug trials were done by a vague and threatening government entity known as "The Shop." They come after the family, and wish to have Charlie for their own purposes, for study, perhaps as a military weapon. It doesn't matter. They merely want their property back; they want Charlie.
After an altercation where Vicky is killed by agents of the Shop, Andy and Charlie go on the run with the government agents close behind and the movie changes from a horror film a sci-fi adventure movie.
As a kid I remember watching the original movie with my father. It was one of the first horror movies I can remember. It was exciting, entertaining, enthralling. I believe it was on television and not a rental. As an adult and after a re-watch, though I still enjoy the movie as it has grand sense of adventure and gives me a reasonable dose of nostalgia, I have realized the original film is definitely less than perfect.
And yet there are things to like here. The story by Stephen King is where most of the strength lies and Bill Lancaster (yes son of the famous actor Burt Lancaster) wrote a script that was very faithful to the original novel.
The original Firestarter script is a masterpiece. It hits many of the King notes: an emotionally abused child who must overcome a great evil, supernatural super powers that are difficult for mortal mankind to comprehend, a miss-trust of authority, and detailed deeply flawed human characters. Stephen King is more than a great writer of horror, he is one of the best writers ever, period. With his deep character studies and stories that each contain an emotionally driven story arch, he is a modern day Charles Dickens. King rarely writes a story that is uninteresting nor develops a character that is unrelatable. Firestarter is no exception. The year the book was written in 1980 it was nominated for numerous sci-fi and fantasy awards. Though it didn't win any of them, it was still one of the better reviewed genre novels of the year. King's original work combined with Bill Lancaster's intelligence was a perfect match.
Before Firestarter Bill Lancaster would make a few film and television appearances guest starring in an episode of "The Big Valley" as well as starring in "Midnight Man" a disappointing neo-noir film directed by his father. In the late 1970s and early 80s he would write screenplays for a few great films, Carpenter's 'The Thing' and the comedy "The Bad News Bears" respectively. and could have gone on to be one of our great American screenwriters. However Bill was a methodic and meticulous writer who labored over every word and found writing with a production date looming over his head to be too overbearing. He would spend nearly a year writing the first draft for John Carpenter's "The Thing" which he would complete three and a half months after the initial delivery date. And yet if you look at that film as well as "Firestarter" the screenplays for both are nearly flawless.
There is very little written about Bill after the release of Firestarter until his death of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Now this is mere conjecture, but I believe that his ongoing health issues concerning polio (he wore leg braces for the majority of his life) combined with his father's legacy looming over his head (Bill was a virtual look alike of his father Burt, with the exception of him being a cripple) could have created some possible mental health issues. He would gain quite a bit of weight before his death. If you look at before and after pictures below and the idea of depression and mental health issues just seems to fit here.
The original "Firestarter" was supposed to be directed by John Carpenter, and frankly it feels very much like a Carpenter film. It rides the line between adventure and horror. It has a healthy dose of sci-fi. It has larger than life characters, especially a nasty villain in John Rainbird, the Shop's go-to assassin. It has the American Western motif of lone characters who must depend on their own self-reliance to survive. Lots of Carpenter handprints here.
Yet because "The Thing" had been such a box office disappointment Universal refused to pay Carpenter's expensive directing fee and would favor Mark L. Lester instead. Mark has had a couple of fun cult hits besides "Firestarter" in his career namely "Class of 1984" a dark ultra conservative take on the delinquency of youth starring a pre "Back to the Future" Michael J. Fox, as well as the successful Arnold Schwarzenegger action vessel "Commando."
Lester seemed to embody the spirit of Carpenter when he directed Firestarter, complete with great action and a synthetic score that you could absolutely mistake for something directed by the horror maestro himself. There is one scene where John Rainbird tranquilizes Andy and Charlie before taking them to the Shop. I thought I was watching an actual Carpenter film. Rainbird and the rest of the agents come out of the woods in all kinds of protective gear, and it seemed to be something straight out of Carpenter's later works "Vampires," or the cheesy "Ghosts of Mars" all while the intimidating synth score was echoing in the background. It's a beautifully blocked scene of authoritative terror.
There are also a few pretty decent performances in the original. Freddie Jones (The Dresser, The Elephant Man) plays Dr. Wanless in a performance that is almost identical to what is in the novel, a weak and pathetic fool with an annoying whimper of a voice, torn by guilt. Then there's David Keith coming off his recent success as in his Academy Award nominated performance in "An Officer and a Gentleman" who is a competent and fatherly Andy and finally Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now, The West Wing) who was perfectly cast as the slimy military politician Captain James Hollister. Every other large role in this film is disastrously miss-cast and that's where the problems lie.
First there's Drew Barrymore, just coming off her success in "E.T.: The Extraterrestrial" who plays Charlie as a very young childish five year old. In the book Charlie is 8 and in the remake she is 11. Here she acts like she's 5, possibly younger. Charlie is often crying like someone very, very young and frankly....I may get some grief for this, but I have never liked Drew Barrymore as an actress. I don't like her her left over baby fat chubby face, her over the top crybaby acting, her cringe inducing sense of humor, and I despise looking at her crooked smiling Popeye face. In my opinion Drew Barrymore's best performance was the first five minutes in Wes Craven's "Scream" where she is terrorized and brutally killed by the Ghost Faced Killer.
Heather Locklear (Melrose Place, Spin City) has a thankless role as "dead mother meant to create grief and force a deeper father and daughter relationship." She is not maternal and when she speaks I feel as though I'm watching a bad actress from a 1970s softcore porno trying to act. There is not an ounce of motherly caring in her performance.
Louise Fletcher was cast as the kind but slightly mistrusting Norma Manders who along with her husband Irv played by Art Carney (The Honeymooners, Harry and Tonto) give a brief save haven for Charlie and her father. Louise is best known for her turn as Nurse Ratchet in "One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest" one of film history's coldest villains, as well as her larger than life performance in the sci-fi television show "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where she plays the recurring character of the politically ruthless Kai Winn. Louise Fletcher should never play someone who needs to portray kindness, and yet here she is trying to act like a motherly aunt or grandma to young Charlie. It's an awkward performance to say the least. And yet she's not the most miss-cast character in the film.
Finally we get to George C. Scott (Patton, Dr. Strangelove) who plays the the deadly Native American assassin John Rainbird. This piece of white washing is just unacceptable and offensive.
In the book Rainbird is a six foot ten monster, a Vietnam War Veteran who has lost an eye and whose face is deformed from an injury he received during the war. He's brutal, and King leaves the intent of the character open to interpretation, turning the character into a golem-like cipher and letting our imagination fill in the missing pieces. Rainbird is an excellent remorseless tracker, a brilliant nihilist who can speak several different languages and is a well-read traveler of the world who understands but doesn't appreciate culture. When Hollister asks Rainbird in the book, how Venice was Rainbird replies in a cold voice, "Sinking." He wishes to understand life, and more so he wishes to understand death. He looks into his victim's eyes and yearns to catch their last moment of living as he karate chops their nose sending chunks into their brains killing them instantly. I don't believe a middle aged Scott, who was in his mid-fifties in this film but looked twenty years older due to his favorite hobbies that included alcoholism and domestic violence, could num-chuk someone's nose into their skull.
Scott's version of Rainbird has some scarring on one side of his face and a faded misty eyeball. In the book his face is deformed and he's missing an eye and he towers over his victims, he's grotesque and a frightening figure to behold.
No matter how good of an actor Scott was he could not pull off this parlor trick. I never believed him to be an imposing villain once in this film. At one point Rainbird has a conversation with Charlie and asks if his appearance scares her. He says, "Want me to cover up my face?" Charlie replies, "I've seen worse." Yeah I have too. I saw it in my mind, when I read it in the damn book. Scott simply did not want to sit in a make-up chair for three hours every day, but of course he was playing a part that was just not meant for him so whatever I guess.
It doesn't matter how brilliant Scott was as an actor, a Native American, incredibly strong monster killer is out of his range despite all the brown base painted on his face and the long ponytail. Scott in his later years, turned from respectable mainstream critically acclaimed masterpieces to some respectable television performances such as Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" and Reverend Brady in "Inherit the Wind," and some decent B movie horror films such as "The Changeling" and "The Exorcist III." All these films are great and Scott gives a typically excellent performance in all of them as they were in his range.
In the book version of "Firestarter" Rainbird wishes to have Charlie for his own believing that when he looks into her eyes and when she kills him at the same time as he kills her he will finally meet death in all it's glory and understand that which is not meant to be understood. It's a creepy bit of spiritual fanaticism, another King motif I might add, but in the movie Scott is treated as a sexual predator grooming his victim and comes off as disgustingly creepy in a whole different way which I do not believe was not the intent of the book. The worst part of this picture is the miscasting of George C. Scott.
With pleasant memories of nostalgia floating around in my head, I was excited but hesitant when Blumhouse decided to produce a remake of "Firestarter". I mean they are the premiere low budget horror movie producers of today. They've released great masterpieces such as "Paranormal Activity" and Leigh Wannel's "The Invisible Man" but they've also released such stinkers as "Fantasy Island" and "You Should have Left." It's a crapshoot whether or not "Firestarter" would be a success. Peacock has decided to stream the film.
Sadly rottentomatoes.com has the movie resting at a dismal 12 percent approval rating. I watched the film. I must say they fixed everything that was wrong with the original, but kept nothing of what made the original so great.
The casting is perfect. Zac Efron plays Andy. Efron swings for the fences with an extraordinary performance. We can see the conflict the character feels as he tries to protect his child, but knows she must now grow up and has to start to learn how to use her powers. She can no longer hide who she is, because she has to learn how to defend herself. He can no longer do this for her. Efron is working hard to break his reputation as the young heartthrob he played in the hit "High School Musical." He recently played Ted Bundy in the Netflix movie "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile," and though the movie was mediocre, his performance was excellent. He has also been in several adult comedies such as "Dirty Grandpa" and "Neighbors." Even his turn as the alcoholic socialite in "The Greatest Showman" though it is still a musical and shows off Efron's talent as a song and dance man, is a far cry from his benign performance as the handsome, brainless Troy Bolten from "High School Musical."
Sydney Lemmon a prestigious Yale Drama School Graduate (Helstrom, Fear the Walking Dead) actually brings a motherly presence to the thankless roll of Vicky.
Kurtwood Smith (Red in That 70s Show, Robocop) interprets Dr. Wanless in a completely different way than the novel but it works nonetheless. He brings a chaotic strength to the character that we haven't seen before.
Reliable character actor John Beasely (Rudy, The Generals Daughter) brings a realism to Irv Manders that was missing before.
Gloria Reuben (ER, Spielberg's Lincoln) is merciless as Hollister. She is doing a Viola Davis impression of her performance of Amanda Waller in the "Suicide Squad", but it works given the new superhero route the remake went on.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays Charlie. It was a correct decision to make the character a little older (11) and thus there's a maturity here that we the audience can relate to. In the previous movie you related to Andy not Charlie, because Charlie was simply too young to connect with. Cute isn't acting Barrymore! Armstrong has been in a few movies first as a victim in another Stephen King Reboot "It" as well as playing a young Black Widow in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. She is a talented young actress that I expect to see great things from in the future.
The best performance here comes from Michael Greyeyes as John Rainbird. Yes they actually got a Native American to play the Native American role. Who would've thought that would've made the character actually believable? Amazing! Now many of you may think "well they replaced Martin Sheen with a Black Woman how is that fair?" It's fair because Hollister's character is not defined in any way by their race. Sheen played one kind of slimy politician, and Reuben played another. A pot-bellied middle aged George C Scott played a powerful Native American assassin obsessed with death. It didn't fit.
Greyeyes plays a believable unstoppable killer. He is the most chilling part of the film. With just the mere shifting of the eyes he embodies cunning and danger. Though he is not as massive as the character in the book, Greyeyes comes from a dance, specifically ballet background and as a result he is stacked and his physique is intimidating. I believe he could kill me with one chop of the arm. I first saw Greyeyes in the excellent zombie movie "Blood Quantum" and he doesn't disappoint here either. He spends much of his time as a choreographer and Artistic Director of the Signal Theatre in Augusta Georgia which he also founded. Though I realize he must get a lot of artistic reward at that theater I hope that revisits the horror community soon and often, because he is an amazing actor. In an interview he is quoted as saying that indigenous people love genre films and though he respects Scott's performance he was honored to take the role back to his people. I couldn't agree more.
The score is also exceptional as they did snag Carpenter to collaborate with the music. It is a classic Carpenter synth melody and the music pushes the action along at a good pace.
And how did King like the film? He has spoken positively of it, mainly because I think the spirit of his characters were kept in tact. King over the years seems to care less about if the plots in his movies are followed when they are adapted for the screen as much as he does his characters, which makes sense as those deeply flawed human creations are what makes King's stories so engaging. The characters here are spot on. Though in the original production the plot was faithful to the book you had actors who were not faithful to the spirit of the characters. It's why he was so vocal about Kubrick's vision of "The Shining" when it premiered. It was no longer about alcoholism, but it was about ghosts and unreliable narrators.
When "Firestarter" was first released King described it being akin to cafeteria mashed potatoes. Bland and uninteresting, but you could swallow it down. Now as he's matured and isn't you know supplementing his alcoholism with a cocaine habit he always speaks kindly of the adaptations of his work, but one interesting tidbit is that King has remarked that he's watched the remake three times, and the original he'd only seen once and that was at the premiere. So that tells you that the movie did get a lot right and King himself is more pleased with it than he was the original.
But if all of these actors and performances are so great and the music is spot on and it even has King's blessing...where is the movie lacking? Blumhouse made some poor choices with an unseasoned director (Keith Thomas) whose stamp I don't see on this film at all. I don't notice any glaring errors, which means he's competent but not great and very new and hasn't found his artistic voice yet. This could be ignored and forgiven even, but what can't dismissed as just a lack of experience was the handling of the source material when the new script was developed.
The writer, Scott Teems was hired because of his recent success with the release of "Halloween Kills." The writing basically transforms the material from a horror/sci-fi/adventure into a superhero origin story complete with bullying, social norms trying to be forced on someone who is different, consequences of having powers beyond belief and vengeance for lost loved ones. I could almost see Uncle Ben from the Spiderman movies drop a note into the palm of Zac Efron advising the actor to deliver his famous line "With great power comes great responsibility." I wonder if Stan Lee's ghost possessed Teems's body while he wrote this rip-off of all superhero blockbusters of the last ten years. Its really formulaic and my God haven't we seen enough superhero movies?
The remake doesn't follow the original plot, It gratuitously leaves the movie open for a sequel in case it makes money, which by the way it hasn't. It may make back the twelve million they spent in production...maybe...if it's lucky. Teems decided to make a story that was mainstream, in a genre that will never be, even if it's gained some legitimacy over the last decade. Horror is a niche genre much like romance, western, and fantasy. They have always been for the outsiders and though they may make money, lots of money sometimes, they are for that special night in, huddled together to protect each other from the big badness on the screen, or that special date night where you hold the hand of the woman you were afraid to even speak to half an hour ago at dinner. Horror makes money through repeated viewings, from mutants like myself who dive deeper into the genre seeing it more than just a piece of entertainment but a work of art appreciated by those that do no not fit into the social norms of society. This superhero remake is too much like everything else being released today.
I'm reminded of a previous article on this site. Jordan Peele acted like a good producer and took a young talent Nia DaCosta under his wing and helped her grow. The recent Candyman sequel as a result is an amazing piece of horror cinema.
Jason Blum produced the recent "Firestarter" film. Blum is a successful Academy Award nominated producer (Whiplash, Get Out, BlacKkKlansman). So many things can be improved upon if those who have experience teach and educate those new upcoming artists who do not. Blum could've been a better mentor to these two new comers instead of giving them a baptism by commercial fire in which they did not come out as a bright and shining phoenix but rather burned up in the cinders and the smoke. The Candyman sequel I'll remember forever. The "Firestarter" remake will be forgotten about by next week. I think we'll need a few beers to get through this one boys.
Comments