Firecracker

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.

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.

Mike Patton, one of my favorite music artist, is going to star not one role but two roles. And this being his first acting role? Mike Patton known for the music projects Tomohawk, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, Faith No More.......etc. Notonly is he going to star but also Karen Black who has been in over 130 movies! The movie was beautifully done. The first scene really got attention. My favorite scene in general was in about 5 minutes in the movie when Jimmy walks through the carnival and everything is black and white except one of the carnival rides. Being an editor myself I could really relate to the colors and how some scenes the colors would fade from one to an other. It was nothing like I've ever scene. Finally something original comes out not only with the storyline but with pretty much everything else. People compare this to David Lynch and I halfway agree. This film tells more of the story by the colors and the amazing and beautiful music. Lynch to me tells the story by mainly audio and music. Steve Balderson is only 30 years old. I think he is going to be very good in the future.

The storyline consist of Jimmy, who is constantly abused by his older brother (well played by Mike Patton). By the end of the movie two tragedy's will take place while both exactly the opposite from each other. I don't want to say much more such as how the different colors mean different things and also how the story is very well compared to The Wizard of Oz and even in my opinion, to the story on how Jesus was betrayed! There is so much symbolism in this movie and so many great aspects that I would write ten pages just to cover them! Please try to watch this film at least once, though the second time it does make more sense. This is the best indy film I've scene this year. I can add this to one of my favorite pshycological films I've scene and add it to my list like Stay, The Jacket, and the Machinist ...etc.

I give the directing a 10, acting a 8, editing a 10, and storyline a 9.

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.