AT fiery eyes, Keith Thomas, the dangerous power of a very young Charlie (Ryan Kira Armstrong) has more of a gift than a threat. The remake of the 80s classic is more about proving the character is some sort of real superhero than it is about taking risks. And it is precisely because of this small nuance that the film fails in the most important aspects. And this despite the fact that he takes more risks and is more ambitious than his predecessor.
But while the book on which both productions are based speculates on small horrors, the remake suggests that power is a wondrous mystery. Much more associated with the X-Men saga and superhero franchises than with the horror genre. fiery eyes disappointing obvious. In this case, Charlie and his father (Zac Efron)’s race to escape a monstrous government project becomes trivial.
Much more when it seems lackluster compared to the great superhero sagas it will have to compete with. fiery eyes he shatters the growing monster premise—a lateral analysis that King skillfully delivers—to support the idea of a miracle. Charlie, who has the ability to create fire that is neither mysterious nor carefully studied, is an amazing creature.
Or is it for the script. The story fills those who persecute her, her father, and those around her with naïve wonder. All the elements that supported the curious and uncomfortable story of King and Mark L. Lester’s 1984 film are gone. And in fact, the desire to show Charlie as an exceptional being ultimately turns the script into a full-fledged origin story.
The film, which has more in common with the science fiction and superhero genres than with horror, is a complex combination of elements. Especially when the second part is dedicated to the evolution of his character from a frightened girl to something more disturbing. But even in its most sinister and brutal moments (and they are), Eyes of Fire remains just a story about a new kind of power. He never digs deep, cares, or shows Charlie as a supernatural (or physically incomprehensible) anomaly, but rather as a being close to full possibility. The change in register and tone makes the film a visually appealing adventure, but has little to offer on a plot level.
Eyes of fire, journey to nowhere
For nearly forty years, there has been a push for the formidable way Stephen King analyzes his female characters. First Carrie – the embodiment of archetypal rage, and then Charlie – supernatural innocence – turned the women of the writing world into complex creatures. But the remake fiery eyes he seems to forget this and insists on linking the character to the main characters in the films.
Charlie is eleven years old and can create and control fire at will. Together with her father, she runs away from a government agency that wants to study her. In the 1980s, the film was able to connect the paranoia of government secrets with a disturbing supernatural ingredient. But in the new millennium, Charlie knows she’s strong, and that strength comes at a price. She doesn’t fully understand its implications, but it doesn’t seem to bother her. And it comes to the point that he even seems to enjoy his strange and increasingly complex power.. analogy with new mutantsJosh Boone “It’s inevitable” and in fact the film questions the same ideas and in much the same tone.
What happens to the perception of good and evil in a movie where the scales are on the girl’s shoulders? The argument is also not interested in the subject, and in fact its main focus is how does Charlie deal with his superpowers? Despite the fact that in the opening credits they make it clear that everything that happened is the result of experiments, the idea of a gift is analyzed in the film. And so it is, extolling Charlie’s abilities to the point where he’s indistinguishable from the many heroes that fill movie screens today.
One of the big problems fiery eyes it was specifically to combat the canons and stereotypes of characters endowed with extraordinary characters. Something that undermined the meaning of Kimberly Pierce’s 2013 remake of Carrie. In this case, the problem is the same. Charlie and his father Andy survived. But also, common characters who must run from a predictable situation. To make matters worse, the film lacks the skill to deal with the perception of fear that is cleverly explored in the original story.
Girl, disaster at the door, disappointment
Even the curious relationship between Andy and Charlie is blurred in a film that gravitates towards the general. In both the book and the ’84 remake, Andy manipulates his daughter into imagining a weapon about to be fired. But in fiery eyes since 2022, Andy is an ambiguous figure, is about to collapse from its own psychic charge. But the tension associated with terror — a rift that could have made Charlie the real, inexplicable threat he originally was — is fading. Instead, Thomas explores the idea of a wonder girl, and in the process, the film loses much of its identity.
fiery eyes it is not a complete failure, but it lacks an identity or individuality. For fans of Stephen King, this will be a disappointment.. Especially since the story has turned into science fiction where it has lost much of its effectiveness. For those unfamiliar with history, this will be just another piece in the puzzle of modern heroes. Perhaps his lowest and most controversial moment.
Source: Hiper Textual
