Work + pseudo-review of Firestarter

[mistressofmuses]

Early day out of the way, though now it's 9:00 and I'm ready to go to sleep. I slept very poorly last night, as usual for when I know I have to get up earlier than usual. I'm always paranoid about not waking up in time, so it turns out I just... don't sleep.

Tomorrow is the mystery training day: we'll see what that's about.

Today's managers' meeting didn't yield MUCH info on our missing new owner, but what it did provide was... not encouraging. Apparently the board of the investment company that he was representing suspended him. No one said for what, or if it was/is a suspension with a defined length of time, or what that means for the company as a whole. What shady shit was going on that caused the suspension? Is he coming back at all? If not, does that mean we'll now be owned by this mysterious "board" of people that none of us have ever met or spoken to? If he does come back, what shady shit happened and how do we trust stuff going forward?

Though our center won the award for fastest-growing center, so that's good?

-

Yesterday we went to see Firestarter. I actually really enjoyed it, and was surprised when I looked it up after and discovered that is a very unpopular opinion! It's rated really low, and I'm... not sure why? Most of the criticism I've seen I just don't agree with, I guess. I've seen complaints that it had no character arc, but I don't really agree. The arc isn't ENORMOUS, but it does HAPPEN. I think it actually had a very satisfying narrative arc (though not entirely character-driven), but it was a *satisfying* climax, which I feel like doesn't happen as often as I want. Kind of an iddy "aren't you tired of being nice? don't you just want to go apeshit?" arc, which is absolutely zero surprise, but I still enjoyed immensely.

The acting was good. The score was great, thank you John Carpenter (and others).

There are some differences from the source material. To be fair, I don't think that most of the criticism has been that they didn't like that it *was* changed, they just didn't like *how* it was changed.
But... I did? *shrug*

I like that we join up with the family in hiding, but pre-discovery, rather than post-discovery.

I especially liked the ways in which Rainbird's character was changed. He's less the overarching antagonist so much as a tool of the antagonists that's also gotten fucked over, and moving him to being another test subject instead of "just" an assassin made his character far more interesting, and made the government's likely intentions for Charlie feel very present. (Also gets rid of the kind of Unfortunate Implication of "this Native character is obsessed with the protagonist and befriends her and wins her trust with the sole aim of eventually killing her".) (Also also the first adaptation to have a Native actor play the character.)

And the ending as portrayed in the book and 80s film - where they decide to go to the unbiased media, so they can share the story with the world and ensure the government never gets away with this again! - would have honestly just felt... naive, imo, so I'm not mad that they dropped that.

I saw one person in a comments section complain that "a movie called Firestarter should actually have some fire happen at some point" to a chorus of "omg yeah, so boring! no special effects!" and... uh... blatantly untrue?

IDK. Usually I'm pretty predictable - I like a lot of generally well-received horror, and dislike a lot of stuff that a lot of other people also dislike.

But I'd watch this ten more times before I'd watch "Malignant" again, which was one everyone except me loved, apparently.

Comments

[olivermoss]

I hope that Mystery Training Day goes well!

I haven't heard much about Firestarter. I might check it out at a point. I think horror films often struggle to find their right audience. Some of my fave horror films have terrible reviews because people were primed for a different sort of film.

I tried to watch Malignant, but didn't make it through. I read spoilers and then was very okay with that.

.... I do finish most media I swear!

Yeah, exposing the truth to the media is very 'and then a miracle happens' in terms of plotting. It would be nice if that seemed like it would do anything?

[mistressofmuses]

I wouldn't necessarily expect Firestarter to be a wild hit, but it surprised me that it has SUCH bad reviews! I expected middle of the road, at least. I wonder if people were expecting something other than what it had to offer... It was a popcorn flick, which to me isn't a *bad* thing. Definitely not genre-redefining or anything, but it gave me what I wanted and I was happy with it, ha.

I... really didn't like Malignant. The handful of bits I thought had potential didn't realize that potential. I get mad about it when I think about it, haha.

I think in the 80s the whole "give a tell-all to the media" maybe had more teeth. (I think in the book they even talked about choosing the right venue for the story, and selecting Rolling Stone based on it not being politically biased.) But now... the idea of someone telling the media and having people CARE enough to put a stop to anything is sadly laughable. It's a nice thought, but for something set in the modern real world? Ha. Cries of "fake news!" is about all I can imagine it provoking.

[olivermoss]

Yeah, the 80s was a very different ball game when it came to the media. That's part of why it makes sense to make changes/updates unless it's a period piece.

The state of the media right now... isn't something I am even going to think about tonight

[mistressofmuses]

I will drink to "not thinking about the state of the media". But in the fun way, not the despairing way that "thinking about the state of the media" would cause. ;)

[spikedluv]

Very strange about new owner. Why would they tell you just that little bit without explaining what's going to happen now?

I hope Mystery Training Day is going well!

[scarlipswolfwife]

I downloaded Firestarter and watched it last week. Now, keep in mind that I'm a huge fan of Stephen King's writing and I love the original 80s movie - it was one of the only adaptations that King himself every liked until they actually started getting him involved with the script adaptations. (Kubrick was a dick piece of shit for what he did in The Shining, and while I still sometimes watch it, I swear at Kubrick's corpse for abusing Shelly Duvall and putting his own weird agendas into the movie over actual choices from the book.)

I'm gonna be honest. I thought the new Firestarter was good and interesting, but it wasn't a movie I figured I'd ever re-watch, so I deleted it. Rainbird was probably my favorite thing about the adaptation. I liked what was done with him. I liked that Charlie didn't remain entirely helpless for as long as she did in the original. It's been a while since I've either read the book or seen the original movie, so I can't completely cross-compare them to the new one. But there were several points that I had to rewind because of moments of half-losing interest, so I missed things and had to replay them. The acting was good. Zack Efron was...a choice that didn't entirely suck the way I thought it might (I'm not a fan - not that I hate him, I'm just indifferent). I don't know. It was good but not good enough for it to really stick to me or make me want to see it again.

[mistressofmuses]

I love Stephen King's writing as well, though I never had strong feelings either way about the 80s movie. (But I haven't seen it in a pretty long time.) While I like Kubrick's The Shining, I also know what a dick Kubrick was on SO MANY levels. I DO recognize that there are things the film does well, but... I think it could have been equally good with him not being an ass.

I'd probably rewatch Firestarter if it came up on one of the streaming platforms I subscribe to, but I probably won't buy it or anything.
I do think the changes to Rainbird's character (and his new arc) were the best change, and the one I found most compelling.
I didn't ever lose interest, though I've seen other people say the same. (Which surprises me, because usually I struggle to pay attention! Then again, could be the difference between watching in a theater and my usual surroundings where I have my computer and phone and such providing distraction and multitasking.)
I feel Zack Efron-neutral, so while it was an interesting choice, it was one I thought worked out just fine.
I'd probably like to see the movie again, because I did find the "finally fuck shit up" climax very satisfying, but it's probably not destined to be a frequent favorite rewatch or anything.