The Forgotten TV Miniseries That Turned A Stephen King Story Into Marvel’s X-Men

In Stephen King’s “Firestarter,” a child develops the ability to harness pyrokinesis. This kid, Charlie, is soon hounded by a government agency known as The Shop, who had conducted drug trials on her parents, Andy and Vicky, when they were young. Nefarious without limits, the Shop kills Vicky and kidnaps Charlie, but Andy is able to use his limited powers (known as The Push) to search for his daughter and flee with her. “Firestarter” fleshes out this perilous journey, honing in on Charlie’s inner struggle and how everyone around her wants to control her powers one way or another. It’s a novel about cultivating autonomy, which often takes root when one faces the brutality of the world firsthand. Although “Firestarter” isn’t as thematically dense as, say, “Carrie” or “The Stand,” it examines the making and unmaking of identity, with society forever ready to intrude if someone dares to stray from the norm.

To no one’s surprise, “Firestarter” got the adaptation treatment more than once. There’s the popular Drew Barrymore-starring 1984 adaptation that feels oversimplified and undercooked, along with the more recent 2022 remake that is — believe it or not — even more lackluster (/Film’s Chief Film Critic Chris Evangelista called it “lukewarm at best”). But there is a third, borderline-obscure adaptation of the novel that took Marvel’s X-Men route by introducing a bunch of gifted youngsters who are shunned by society. I’m talking about “Syfy’s Firestarter: Rekindled,” a two-part miniseries that is supposed to be a sequel to the 1984 film. Yep, that means an adult Charlie (Marguerite Moreau) has to navigate fresh threats, potentially helping us fill in the blanks about the conditions she grew up in and how her experiences shaped her as a gifted person.

Does Charlie view her pyrokinesis as a curse, as it puts a target on her back and complicates how she is perceived as an individual? Before we dive into whether “Firestarter: Rekindled” bothers to answer these pertinent questions, let’s take a look at what the miniseries is about.

“Firestarter: Rekindled” opens with Charlie working at a library, where she spends her time researching her powers to suppress them. It’s a quiet but peaceful life, and this hard-earned bliss is shattered when a researcher tracks her down to ask questions about the experiments that started it all. The victims of this unethical drug trial seem to have won a class-action lawsuit, and Charlie’s name is on the list of people who deserve reparations for what had been done to them.

However, it is soon revealed that the lawsuit in question doesn’t exist, as it is a ruse by John Rainbird (Malcolm McDowell) — the man who killed Charlie’s father — who is now obsessively looking for Charlie. He doesn’t want to stop there, either: Rainbird is also creating a dangerous army of firestarters, who acquire new and freaky mutations, thanks to more experiments with the chemical Lot-6.

This premise could have worked, as it is a fresh interpretation of the source material that goes beyond its scope. The X-Men adjacent storyline of mutant firestarters could have been fresh and exciting, evoking a contrast to Charlie, who has also been sidelined all her life for her innate “otherness.” However, series writer Philip Eisner and director Robert Iscove failed to do anything interesting with it, even though a chunk of the cast did their utmost to elevate the flimsy script, muddled dialogue, and uninspired visual storytelling. What’s worse, “Rekindled” takes the melodramatic route instead of mixing high-octane action with camp, which could have meshed well with the emotionally heavy moments to ground the miniseries as a whole.

My biggest gripe with the show is how little it delves into Charlie, even though the events revolve around her, highlighting a missed opportunity to dig deeper into how she engages with herself. Even new characters, like fellow Lot-6 victim James (Dennis Hopper), are not really allowed to shine, as the focus is fixed on supernatural spectacle and its thoughtless, empty aftermath. The rest is a middling-to-straight-up-terrible mix of shoddy CGI, questionable character moments, and an over-reliance on sepia-toned flashbacks that unceremoniously dump context and exposition.