MrGKB ...especially when there's very little plot or involving acting for an audience to latch onto. Too long by at least a half an hour, neo-auteur Steve Balderson's "Firecracker" has a lot going for it visually, and (unfortunately) almost nothing else. Singular vision does not an engaging movie make, low budget or no.Admittedly, the statistical sample is small, but I've yet to see an IMDb voter breakdown as peculiar as the one "Firecracker" currently has: nearly half the votes are "10s" or "1s," and the rest are as evenly split from "2" to "9" as I have EVER seen on the IMDb. Quite strange. Me, I gave it a "5," primarily for its visual flair, as well as for the obvious value that Balderson was able to squeeze out of his minuscule budget (which I've read was nowhere near the $2mil listed here on the IMDb). Balderson definitely gets props for putting together such a professional looking film.But that's as far as I can go. Appearances do not make a good film, be it meant for mere "entertainment," or for the manipulation of emotion or thought, or for any more high-minded reason. At their core, movies are storytelling, and to succeed, the story must be one that engages its audience. This is primarily accomplished by offering up characters (or ideas) that the audience cares about and a plot that moves inexorably, no matter how obliquely or intricately, toward an end that fulfills some need within that audience. To my mind, "Firecracker" fails in this regard. I won't belabor the acting, some of which is surprisingly good, though much of it is not, nor will I pillory the dialog, which has successes and faults of its own. I won't even criticize the plot, slim as it is. What left me distracted and restless before "Firecracker" was even half over was the lack of characters that I cared about, along with a story that was taking so long to get somewhere that it no longer interested me. The characters had no arc, and the plot therefore had no drive. It seemed like a film that merely meant to proclaim, "Look at me! Look how good I look, and on such a measly budget! You should be impressed that I even exist!" It smelled of art-house pretension and deliberately obscure meaning. As the Sex Pistols would have said, it was "pretty vacant." It was boring.I'll not bother rehashing said plot, since anyone reading this has either already seen the movie or read enough about it. For the geek viewer, I'll mention that it features a number of carny performers, including a midget stripper and an ostensible three-breasted woman, a suggestion of genital mutilation, and the acting debut of rock band Faith No More's Mike Patton, who will never be the next Dwight Yoakum or Harry Connick, Jr. If Dennis Hopper had remained with the project, comparisons to David Lynch's work would have been far more pronounced than they already are.Somehow I made it through to the end, which as of this writing, I've already forgotten, along with most of what there was of a story. There wasn't a memorable line to be had, nor any character within that I hope to ever revisit. It earns its "5" from me strictly for transcending its budget, and to encourage Mr. Balderson to aim higher next time, if there is a next time. Sometimes you can so love your child that you become blind to that child's failings. I hope Mr. Balderson will make a stronger effort to keep his eyes wide open in the future.

Phantomterror 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.

MorganMan1 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.

ztanlines 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.