Ay carumba! It looks like somebody's gonna feel that burn!
Those of us who follow media know that -- ahem -- society can be unkind to some movies, and it looks like that might be the case with the 2022 reboot of Stephen King's Firestarter. After a wealth of bad reviews, this one came-and-went pretty quickly from the box office, and -- so far as I could tell -- there really was no critical consensus regarding exactly why it was so -- erm -- undercooked? I do recall reading some remarks attributing some of its lackluster pace to Zac Efron, but as I often point out actors can only do the best they can with what they're given. Perhaps it was best to leave this one untouched? Was a reboot really all that necessary? Honestly, I don't recall the 1984 original being all that good. Perhaps King himself went pushing for a revisitation? Who can say?
In any event, Box Office Mojo reports that this thing only managed to eek out an astonishingly low $15 million globally. Dayam! Talk about your burn! I've no idea what it was budgeted at, but I can't even begin to imagine that Blumhouse Productions can be happy with that take. I guess they needed to dump it on home video as quickly as possible in order to stir some embers, and I'm showing that it's available for purchase today. Can't give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, though, peeps, because I've never seen it. Just didn't interest me.
Still, kudos for the attempt, I guess. Maybe in thirty years they'll give this one another dust-off and finally get it right. Don't they say that the third times a charm anyway?
Amazon.com link for purchase
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Those of us who follow media know that -- ahem -- society can be unkind to some movies, and it looks like that might be the case with the 2022 reboot of Stephen King's Firestarter. After a wealth of bad reviews, this one came-and-went pretty quickly from the box office, and -- so far as I could tell -- there really was no critical consensus regarding exactly why it was so -- erm -- undercooked? I do recall reading some remarks attributing some of its lackluster pace to Zac Efron, but as I often point out actors can only do the best they can with what they're given. Perhaps it was best to leave this one untouched? Was a reboot really all that necessary? Honestly, I don't recall the 1984 original being all that good. Perhaps King himself went pushing for a revisitation? Who can say?
In any event, Box Office Mojo reports that this thing only managed to eek out an astonishingly low $15 million globally. Dayam! Talk about your burn! I've no idea what it was budgeted at, but I can't even begin to imagine that Blumhouse Productions can be happy with that take. I guess they needed to dump it on home video as quickly as possible in order to stir some embers, and I'm showing that it's available for purchase today. Can't give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, though, peeps, because I've never seen it. Just didn't interest me.
Still, kudos for the attempt, I guess. Maybe in thirty years they'll give this one another dust-off and finally get it right. Don't they say that the third times a charm anyway?
Amazon.com link for purchase
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
RSS Feed