Possibly mild spoilers!

I have to say that I'm extremely puzzled regarding the review scores for this film. What were they watching? Can't have been this, that's for sure. (Because I know best)

I know a lot of people probably won't agree but I loved almost every minute of it with a few exceptions; those relating to cat heaven, pronouns and the ever infamous "Liar, liar pant's on fire" line featured in the trailer.

I never liked the 1984 adaptation all that much. To me, it always felt too long and sleep inducing. Thankfully, this version remedies that by removing all the pacehalting obstacles that make the 84' version feel like it's 3 hours long. A pretty brave decision on the filmmakers' part . Another brave decision concerns the ending, which is sure to be devisive. I for one, loved the ending.

Brave.

As an adaptation, I feel it safe to say that the 84' version sticks much closer to the source material, for better or worse.
This is not the book, and that's OK.

Efron and Armstrong, which share great chemistry together, are both really good and they sold every scene they're in. Michael Greyeyes' Rainbird steal the show for me though. I love the look of him and what they did with the character's arc.

Visually, it's a great looking film. The combination of John and Cody Carpenter's bass heavy score and the raw, forceful VFX that feel like an explosion of fire etched into your retinas leave you with an immense feeling of satisfaction that lasts all the way through the end titles.

Pros: The actors, the score, the pacing, the streamlined plot,the brave new ending and shirtless Efron.
Cons: Cringeworthy dialogue (from the writers of Halloween Kills) in two scenes.

8/10 - Great

He might look good in a white T-shirt but the thing is, as Zac Efron gets older he looks more and more like an automaton. When he was younger, he had a charm about him - now he just looks like his life consists of nothing but the gym, the manscapists and a bath in yesterday's excess kale smoothie mix! Add to that really lacklustre performance some screaming from a competent youngster in Ryan Kiera Armstrong ("Charlie") and we are left with a very mediocre adaptation of this pretty lightweight Stephen King story that is big on pyrotechnic effects, certainly, but on very little else. There is a story: the youngster can cause things to combust at will when she gets stressed or annoyed; her father can bend people to his will making his eyes bleed in the process - quite an effective cure for smokers who want to give up; and her mother - Sidney Lemmon, well she too has a quirk - but I cannot remember what it was (but it definitely wasn't firefighting). Anyway, those who scientifically enhanced this family are hot on their trail - and it's all a question of who will prevail. Well it would be if you were still remotely bothered but after half an hour I just wasn't. For a movie about conflagration - it's sadly all a bit of a damp squib.

Eh, just another pointless remake/re-adaptation, although I don't mind it since the 1984 version wasn't great either. Nothing terrible but not anything special either. Performances were bland and not even the pyrotechnics weren't all that impressive. I guess it's fine to watch for free on Peakcock Premium but even so, you're really not missing anything. **2.25/5**

Add it to the “passible movies that are adaptations of Stephen King novels” pile, which is getting concerning-ly large.
Regardless, I got to see the NOPE trailer on the big screen!

**Ironically, this fire never got going—total dud.**

What? How? I didn't expect to be blown away, but I also didn't expect to be bored. I love Blumhouse flicks, and their fresh take on The Invisible Man had my expectations high for their version of Firestarter. Unfortunately, this was as straight to streaming as a movie could feel. Think Push (2009) but much more mediocre.