Firecracker

I saw this film at one of its first showings and am constantly checking for a DVD release of it. I choose to review now because there is a lack of good information on it.

Firecracker stars Mike Patton, in his first actual acting role, for those of you that know Patton and his music, I don't think I need to tell you he's a very talented man that never fails to both enlighten and entertain.

Back to the movie, it is actually set in the very town that the story takes place. It takes place about 50 years ago and judging by the town's decor, it hasn't changed much since then. The plot is based on a true story and is very emotional, Jak Kendall and Mike Patton work great together and as you will see that is crucial for this movie to work so well.

Despite a low budget this movie contains really great visuals through the dynamic use of colour for different scenes. The camera-work is something you really need to see, especially if you're sick of the ADD-inspired-camera-angle-onslaught film-making of today.

Whether you're a Mike Patton fan that just wants to see if you're favourite front-man can act, or if you're in the mood for a solid movie with both a great story and visual; you'll be happy you saw Firecracker.

Hopefully, we'll get a DVD release soon. :)

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 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.

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.

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.