Benutzerrezensionen

One review said "all style and no substance". I used the same words with my friend only 3 minutes before. Not a coincidence. This is the biggest rip-off(or pointless homage at least) of Blue Velvet(and Twin Peaks) ever created. Which really enrages me cause David Lynch is my favorite director. The acting in this is atrocious. Some of you will be allured by the indie style it's shot or the quirky/dark subject matter and I suppose you'd like David Lynch too. Or perhaps you just dig the shock value of this type of movie. I hope you see one of his films and see how it takes more than just bizarre imagery to make something brilliant. What he does is brilliant and distinctly him. Yea i know maybe i didn't do my research, it could be an homage which is a sweet gesture. Regardless, this movie is clowshoes drizzled in failsauce.

I forced myself to sit through the entire DVD, so it couldn't have been the very worst film I've ever seen. Still, I can't think of one that's worse.

I began to wonder if was a parody: one of those arcane, in-crowd extended jokes whose humor failed to penetrate my too-serious mind, but after reading the awards (!) and reviews, I have abandoned that theory. If it is a film-maker's joke, it has taken in a huge number of viewers.

Firecracker lacks even a shred of nuance. Every emotion is troweled on the screen melodramatically; every line emoted more on the nose than any soap opera utterance; every facial expression bulging over the top like a beer belly.

The characters and their motives are trite and utterly predictable. The fact that the story is based on real events does not excuse the miserable screenplay.

Performances range from amateurish to atrocious, excepting Susan Traylor's and Paul Sizemore's. Karen Black channels Gloria Swanson at her Sunset Boulevardian worst. Jak Kendall is all over the place, and not in a good way, particularly when he tries to portray nervousness: you will have seen many a seventh-grader act more convincingly.

The cinematography is bearable, though as overblown as the script and acting--which is to say, laughably inflated. The direction and editing give us excruciatingly long scenes that say nothing, but were evidently included because they satisfied some directorial fetish or clause in an actor's contract.

Altogether, this is a bloated, high camp, reprehensible waste of film and 112 tortured minutes of my time. I still can't quite believe it is meant to be taken seriously. What is serious, however, is this: If you haven't seen it, don't.

I was fortunate enough to see this film twice - both the premier screening and it's subsequent showing both at the Raindance Film Festival, where it was nominated for the Jury Prize - Best Film. Unfortunately the sound was a bit problematic at the premier, due to a dodgy speaker (front left - the side I was sitting on) and so seeing it again really made a big difference to the film for me.

Karen Black (playing both religious mother called Eleanor, and a circus singer called Sandra) was wonderful in her dual roles, and Mike Patton I felt was more convincing as David (Eleanor's abusive alcoholic eldest son) than as Frank - the owner/manager of the circus.

The story centers around the disappearance and suspected murder of David, which is investigated by the Sheriff Ed (really well played by Susan Traylor), but also deals with the various unhealthy, abusive and controlling relationships that exist between the characters. The one relationship that seems to be nothing more than friendship is between Jimmy (Eleanor's youngest son) and Sandra, as they each strive for their own freedom from their abusive lives.

Eleanor tries to maintain normality in her family - despite her husbands declining health and David's abuse of Jimmy. Sandra strives for a normal life, to return home

and escape the circus, particularly the abusive Frank. The question is will they be successful?

Visually the film is quite beautiful - the opening shot of the prairie burning is just one example of the wonderful cinematography. A viewer might also recall "Pleasantville" in the film's use of B+W and Colour - the circus is always in colour, the town in black and white. It turns out to be quite a useful convention, on a number of levels, and does help to structure the story for the viewer.

I loved this film, mainly for the performance of Karen Black as Eleanor/Sandra, the visual feast of the beautiful cinematography, and the excellently plotted storyline (which is based on true events).

I don't ever do comments but this movie was so bad I had to. It annoyed me from the beginning with a horrible slow-mo long shot of a guy running and then never got better. I can't believe so many people made high remarks about this movie. I guess if you like incest gay rape or female castration or enjoy watching a midget strip you might like it and that wasn't even the worst part. Mike Patton and Karen Black play duel roles, I believe to save money, but the key to playing duel roles is that you have to be different characters and I don't think they got the memo. Patton is awful, Black is a little better, but it's like you're watching two crappy stories play out at the same time with the same characters. The edits seemed to be made by college students, the symbolism was poor, the character development was awful and every person in the film was one dimensional. The kicker was that the police couldn't follow the obvious in your face clues that a 4th grader could pick up on, they had to turn to a crazy lady that lived in a field next to a tree that she hung bottles on. My vote for the worst movie of the year, close to all time. There is so much more I could dissect but I don't have enough space.

As a fan of film noir and detective movies, I am too often put off by modern attempts into the genre that try to replace atmosphere and intelligence by just having gratuitous nudity and swearing; the genre managed atmosphere without these in the forties and fifties but yet modern films seem to rely on them. With Firecracker however, everything works perfectly and, as such, the noir portions look exactly like they were made in the forties and fifties. Everything down to lighting, dialogue, and even the delivery of the lines. Even if the material and tone is darker and harsher than would have been allowed back then, it's the closest film to capture accurate film noir in today's cinema. One of the best detective noirs I have seen in ages. The story development is always going to be the most important thing and Firecracker gets it spot-on throughout, doing the proper thing of starting with a simple story and continually building it more and more complex as it goes. Unlike some other "classics", Firecracker manages to do this without ever losing the audience and I found the plot to be both rewardingly complex but yet still very easy to follow.

Needless to say, things are very dark and the script is convincingly dark, leading to an ending that is as depressing as I've seen – not so much in what actually happens but also in the wider implications for the characters that the credits prevent us from seeing. Director Steve Balderson does a great job of putting this story in a setting that produces a real strong sense of period but also manages to always be showing us the darkness coming through subtly. Of course it helps that he also has a great cast to work with. Karen Black is iconic in this role and, if I had to pick one film to act as an introduction to Black then it would be this film. She brings out her complex characters better than most actresses in the business. She's a living legend! Susan Traylor has less screen time but is just as impressive. Jak Kendall is unbelievably great for his first film. The supporting cast are all fine but really the film belongs to these three, with Karen Black being the stand out role.

Overall this is a very complex, mysterious film; it is dark and seedy without relying on swearing or nudity to set the atmosphere. The direction is great, with a real atmosphere and sense of time and place that is matched by a great collection of performances delivering a great script. A work of art.

I went to see this movie last night and ended up walking out (actually, I think I counted at least 10 other walk-outs before me). I must say I had been extremely excited about seeing it. It had no redeeming qualities, except for maybe the colors. Overacting dramatic scenes were met with laughter, that kid's face bugged the hell out of me. It was so unrealistic it was difficult to watch. I've never felt so duped in my life. The makers of this movie should be banned from ever making another. No wonder they can't find a distributor! It sucks! Don't see this movie. Don't give them your money. don't see this it's horrible! My girlfriend hated it too.

the film was a big disappointment. i found it irrelevant, easy, badly scripted, badly directed and when I met with the producer, couldn't answer the simplest questions. Fortunately I got to meet with Selene who was super nice!

The only good thing in the film is Karen Black's acting. Who thought of getting Mike Patton to play a part? He sucked! The carnival was not pertinent to the story, i felt it was there just to "look cool".

The "chorus" aka Pearl looked misplaced. She had a definite 1970s look to her and she really didn't need to be in the film.

My thoughts:

• it's VERY HARD to be a good actor with a bad script - what is with the red cape? Little Riding Hood imagery... i don't get it. - the b&w / colour concept was interesting yet badly done technically - it's unclear when this takes place. it's supposed to be 1950s but there is tons of anachronisms (white Nike running shoes being the most common one). - sometimes we hear the camera motor running... that's just BAD film-making - one car scene with the camera on hood while the actors are driving on a dirt road = IMAGE SHAKING, didn't the director ever hear of a backdrop? - too much details is worse than not enough, Jimmy's ticks are just annoying... one facial tick, fine. two, fine. three, fine. 25 at the same time = BAD! The actors didn't seem to be getting any direction. Which denotes a bad filmmaker. - Frank is a big stereotype - Is Jimmy gay? If he isn't, he sure was portrayed as such. Why? Is this hidden gay bashing? - they should have had a French-language consultant because frankly the "French" guy's accent sucked so bad and Karen Black couldn't pronounce "coeur" in her song.

Yeah... i really didn't like it. This is some self-indulgent film, i really don't get what the fuss is about.

There isn't much I can say about this film that others who disliked it haven't already said. The acting is awful during many parts, and the direction is even worst at times. The story was good, but the direction and acting of this film really took away from that. There were even moments where I would laugh, because the acting was so bad. If rumors are true that Dennis Hopper was fired so Mike Patton could play the two roles, I'm shocked. Mike Patton did alright for his debut acting performance, but it was still very weak. He was definitely not brilliant as some reviews claim. This film is not as great as it's hyped out to be, and I'd even say it's not worth your time or money.

One of my new all-time favorite movies, though if had to choose only one film to bring on a desert island, I'd probably go for Moulin Rouge. The main appeal of Firecracker (and its main weakness, according to its detractors) is that the film can be viewed from many different points of view. As an almost traditional classic tragedy; as a straight detective story; as a character study of an imprisoned boy (though everyone in the cast is trapped by something); as a carefully paced thriller; or, as a surreal dream. All of those genres fit here. And they fit perfectly.

People have criticized Balderson's choice of firing Dennis Hopper in favor of Mike Patton as the lead, but I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the part(s): he's a genius, where he had the courage to play a self-destructive, negative character, with bitter realism.

Full of great, innovative ideas that I think will be copied over and over for years to come.

Karen Black and Mike Patton deserve Oscar nominations!

This movie was a complete waste of time. Absolutely nothing is right about it. Awful script, awful acting, awful costumes, awful directing. Where do I begin? The script is completely incoherent filled with characters never explained or connected to the central story in any way. You do, however, get tons of ridiculously bad dialog and a movie filled with every cliché you could ever think of. If this is supposed to be set in the 1950s, there is absolutely no excuse for many of the things in this movie. Nike tennis shoes abound, people in modern day dress, modern hair styles on the ladies, very modern decorations (table lamps, etc). Completely lazy and incompetent direction. How do this not get nominated for any Razzies? Forget the little brother's physical abuse. The worst abuse will be you sitting through this piece of garbage.

"Firecracker" is not your regular film; it's done with a technique that is not common in the industry, and therefore has been and probably will be, both criticized and praised. The technique is used by showing realistic moments in merciless (and real) black and white and fantasy moments in dazzling colour. There are some of the most elaborate sequences of any movie ever made. This way of filming shows how the two opposite worlds become one world as the story lines merge. The plot itself does not trail far from the true story it's based on, judging by what's on the official web site. So it's anyone's guess as to what parts of the movie are dramatized and which parts are truth.

Visually, this movie is spectacular. The colors are scorching and add a sense of mystery to the film. The music is exquisite and the performances are perfectly played. This movie hit me in a really hard way.

It's impossible to stop thinking about this movie.

to ridiculous to comment properly(particularly the ridiculous beard)... The director should have used Mike Patton to scream or make strange noises. It would have been the highpoint of the movie as there's nothing there. The movie is full of transitions between color and Black&White, focused/unfocused, etc It seems to me that it was the directors way of trying to make something out of a movie with bad acting and stupid argument. It only makes a mess. When I was watching at the cinema, at some point i looked left, and the guy on my left was sleeping, i looked right, and the guy on my right was also sleeping. I enjoyed the four guys making constant fun out of the movie in the row behind me...

I saw it yesterday on Fantasporto - a horror/fantasy movie festival here in Porto (Portugal) and I didn't like the experience at all. It was a dull movie, with a poor argument. Some people got so bored they left the theater way before the film ended. It was too long for a story that didn't have that many points of interest. And the name of the movie doesn't even make much sense, and neither does the starting image (the fire), or the crazy woman in the fields. And the freak show didn't add anything to the movie or to the murder history - it just seemed the director's way to make it interesting. I enjoyed Mike Patton performance (more convincing as David) though, quite a nice surprise.

This film had an enormous amount of potential as a drama/murder mystery, but the two ends do not meet. Firecraker would easily leave any viewer asking what the point of this film was, and I don't blame them. It asks far too much of the viewer for interpretation, and quite frankly it doesn't seem intentional.

I really enjoyed some parts of Firecracker. There were moments that were truly gripping and sent chills down my spine. But most of that was counteracted by incredibly poor acting. Don't get me wrong - Jak Kendall was brilliant, and Mike Patton was as vibrant as his music (perhaps too much). Yet others like Karen Black and Amy Kelly are almost laughable at points. I can only blame it on amateurish direction, and it's a shame, because these people can do better.

Despite that, there's a lot to appreciate here. The editing, cinematography and colors of the film are brilliant and beautiful. Yet the story, while gripping at its core, is presented in such a hollow form that the whole package really falls flat.

I would regretfully not recommend this film to anyone. It is at more time painful to watch than captivating. And that is truly unfortunate. This story should definitely be re-visited with better direction. The art of this film and good storytelling could co-exist to create something truly brilliant - but this is not it.

And upon further review, I think it is worth noting that almost all 10/10 reviews on this film are from accounts that were made solely to put a positive face on this movie and were probably done by those involved with the movie. If you don't believe me, click on their accounts and you will see that this is the only film they've reviewed.

This has to be the biggest waste of time that ever called itself a movie. It's one of perhaps 5 movies that I would never sit through, even for money. The only one in our family that seemed to enjoy it is our cross-eyed cat. It kept turning its head side ways until it finally fell over. Blockbuster should be ashamed of putting this movie on its shelf. I hated it and so did my dog, it causes him to hike his leg every time he hears the word "Firecracker" now.

Karen Black was awful in this movie. The movie had no story line and looks like the local High School drama club shot it on a hand held home movie camera. The cast had no direction and the acting was pitiful. What a waste of time and four dollars.

Like most people who've seen this movie, I watched it because of Patton. I'm sure a lot of people were as excited as I was, at beginning least two years ago, when they read what the movie was about, saw production stills and, eventually, read what the critics and lucky few who saw it had to say. It sounded great.

But, man, this movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Lots of people are quick to jump on the actors but, with the exception of Jak Kendall who looks like he's never acted a day in his life, I don't blame them. Both Karen Black and Mike Patton are only given cliché'd lines and stick-thin characters. Patton's never given enough to give either of his characters the weight they deserve and Black's characters, on the other hand, are given too many pointless scenes without enough meat to them. It's hard to act well through bad dialogue AND directing, but Black comes out still respectable (very respectable if you take the former problems into account). Patton also does well. He seems a little unsure at times, (moreso with the character of Frank), as if he's trying to get a grip on what he's supposed to be portraying. Whose fault deserves the blame for that is up for discussion, and, though I'm a huge fan, I'm by no means a Patton apologetic. That said, I couldn't help but picturing both Patton and Black possibly starring in a really great movie while it's almost impossible for me to picture anyone delivering this movie's lines any better than the shot they gave it.

But enough rambling about who's to blame. Above all, this movie is incredibly self-aware and pretentious. So much so that it fails to see it's own faults for what they are. One gets the sense that Balderson was happy just to have his ideas on the screen, no matter how well they all gelled. Where the color/ black and white shifts should be subtle they are brazen and over-the-top (it's not cool, it's distracting and show-offy). The music is alright although, sometimes the contrast between the melodramatic score and the ridiculousness of what's on screen is unintentionally funny.

BOTTOM LINE: Bad reviews or good reviews, I would've seen this film just to watch Patton act, so I know there are a lot of people out there who are going to see this film no matter what it says on IMDb. That said, both Patton and movie fans, prepare to be really disappointed.

Having watched this twice at the Raindance Film Festival in London, England, there is more to the film than meets the eye. There are symbols showing you different things, such as the blue-bottled tree and the mirrors all over the place. You may not realize it, but this film is really quite clever, using metaphors to the max. It is also interesting to note the use of blue and red throughout the picture.

Susan Traylor is the strongest performer in the movie. I agree with what everyone else has stated about Karen Black and Mike Patton, but in my opinion, Susan Traylor was the one who seemed the most correct in her depiction of the character. I liked the tempo of the movie and it reminded me of David Lynch very much. Only, unlike David Lynch's movies, this one made sense and somehow I could follow along.

An unusual film, but recommended if you want a film to think about. If you want a film to relax in, try Shrek or Shrek 2!

Firecracker is about an abusive brother that terrorizes his family and others in a small Kansas town. The results are devastating to the family. The film is normally in black and white but switches to color during emotional scenes, which is meant to add to the drama and visual effects. While the acting is good, the screen play is a little bit of a yawner. There is a subplot about a roving carnival and an abusive owner who beats and disfigures his woman of choice. I really didn't take the time to understand the connection because the film was too thick with metaphor. Based on actual events, its understandable why this story was buried back when it happened. It's hard to imagine the abusive wack jobs depicted back in those innocent Andy Griffith days.