Firecracker (2005)

Christ where do I start with this mess of a movie. Don't get me wrong, Firecracker had its moments but they were few and far between. First of all the person who edited this should go right back to school FOR A LONG TIME and actually learn how to edit. There was so much of this film that could have been cut out, its just simply too long which makes it dreadfully boring! I've seen this movie several times in theaters and on DVD so you can say I really tried to give it a chance only because of Patton pretty much like everyone else. Im sure no one would have really bothered if he wasn't in it.95% of the acting was terrible to say the least, heres why- 1. Jak Kendall was the WORST of all with his unconvincing, mildly retarded sissy ass voice which made me want to give him a laxative to get rid of that confused and constipated look on his face the whole freaking time.2. Karen Black- gotta love her. She was one of the only people in this film with any actual acting skills. I enjoyed watching her as the sexy but mutilated Sandra who is the love interest/prisoner of the obsessive and abusive Frank, ringleader of the circus of freaks. She also plays Jimmy and Davids mother.3. Mike Patton- the reason why pretty much everyone risked burning their eyes to watch this P.O.S. His acting debut was nothing really special and a lot of it was really too theatrical and over acted. I did like him as David though who is also abusive like his other character Frank, almost too similar. Too bad he doesn't get to stick around for very long. We wont even bother speculating as to whether David could be Jimmys father as well. Ew.4. Susan Traylor was pretty good and one of the very few actors who helped salvage this movie and make it somewhat bearable as Ed the cop who is on a mission to find David after he mysteriously goes missing and later discovers his dead body in a tool shed outside of his family's home.5. The Enigma SUCKED. Enough said about that.6. Paul Sizemore was OK as Harry the sort of ditzy sidekick of Ed the cop. Not really much to say about him there was nothing remotely memorable about his character.7. Brook Balderson- Why?! She wreaked to say the least. Her character as Pearl the oracle was so pointless and annoying and my least favorite aside from Jimmy (Jak Kendalls character)She looked like an over-cooked chicken in a robe and had as much acting skills as one.And lastly I cant remember who played the nosy neighbor but she was funny.All in all this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars for its lackluster performances and drawn out scenes. This movie was ultimately a bust and very over glorified by these phony critics who dared liken this film to anything David Lynch has done or the Wizard of Oz or anything remotely good calling it an American cult classic (laughable). Obviously those comments are F for fake!!! The director Steve Balderson wishes he had a fraction of the talent in one of David Lynchs turds.

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.

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.

I was intrigued watching this movie, but despite being told at the start of the movie that it is based on true events and that it is a tragedy, I sure wished someone would have let me in on what the actual crime was about. For example, if I had not watched the movie, In Cold Blood many years ago, along with knowing a good deal of the crime, I know I would and could not have appreciated the movie Capote as much as I did. I was glad that Mollywood finally released In Cold Blood on DVD prior to the release on DVD of Capote.But this movie did not have a prior movie for me to draw information from. So, I still don't know what this movie is about other than a slaying crime happened in Wamego, Kansas, and people "dying" to get out of the carnival of "life/death."I do appreciate movies with symbolisms and other ways of conveyance of thoughts and feelings, but this movie went a little too far in left ... AND right field. Also, one thing that I have found to be most annoying with films is putting carnivals or circuses as a location or backdrop theme(s). Additionally, this movie, the carnival was given deliberate forced coloring that continued to assault my eyes and brain to the point I had become most weary of the ... well, the same point(s) of "art" being made over and over again REPEATEDLY leaving any more creativity that might blossom in other scenes be drowned out.Even after finishing this movie I still wanted to know more about this crime and was hopeful that the Special Feature on the DVD had something to offer me, but alas, there was nothing other than the director's laughing comment about their dikenga.com website and chattered on about various bits of dikenga symbolism and how to make a movie. Comments lacked considerably on the scenes being shown (on the voice-over commentary on the DVD), which took me further into aggravation ... seems even the director didn't think scenes of his movie warranted depth insight(s) for the viewer.I do feel that there was art and creativity done in this movie, but I'm not an artsy filmmaker .. am just an ordinary movie enthusiast whom appreciates a movie when it is done well. Then again, as I said, I am weary of carnivals and circus backdrops used in films and since this movie was very heavily laden with the carnival for symbolism, I can't get much further than this particular personal block to praise this movie more highly as others have done. So, three stars for creativity and minus 7 stars out of 10 for overworked/hackneyed symbolism.