Firecracker

Co-stars Karen Black and the magnificent Mike Patton, playing dual roles, give what are without question the best performances of their respective careers (plus this is Patton's first role): deftly played, their roles provide emotionally overwhelming impacts more powerful than anything glimpsed in the film. Susan Traylor is also superb but I thought Jak Kendall's performance as Jimmy was poor. I didn't feel anything for him. Patton and Black make up for it, with strong integrity. Their battle with true evil becomes the focus in which all four characters (David, Frank and Elenor, Sandra) confront their various demons, battling for both victory and personal salvation. The screen play is itself a masterwork with intricate twists. And, finally, the composer's exquisite score is a minor classic, a requiem to lost souls.

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).

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 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.

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.