In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

...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.

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.

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.

"Firecracker" is a film that I can't stop thinking about. Maybe I'm over analyzing it. The film is based on true events of a murder that took place in Kansas in the early 1960's. Jimmy is a shy and sensitive musician who is constantly abused by his older alcoholic brother and misunderstood by his religious fanatic mother. He meets a carnival singer, Sandra who also faces sexual abuse by Frank,the leader of the carnival freak show. After Jimmy commits a murder, which is more of an act of self defense; he dreams of running away to join the carnival with Sandra. Jimmy's world is filmed in black and white and Sandra's in eye-popping "Wizard of Oz" like color. Actress Karen Black gives an amazing performance as both Sandra and Jimmy's mom. Mike Patton of the band "Faith no More" plays both Jimmy's abusive brother David and the villainous carnival leader. Since Mike Patton plays the abuser in both roles, Jimmy and Sandra's lives are a mirror reflection of each other. Both Jimmy and Sandra dream of escaping their own personal prison. Jimmy dreams of the carnival and Sandra dreams of regular society. There is no escape for either of them, since both environments are as equally cruel. They feel trapped, and their lives seem to be a metaphor for sexual abuse.Some parts of the film are left unexplained. Example is the mysterious schizophrenic girl who lives under a tree with glass bottles that hang from the branches. She seems to be a psychic in some manners. I've never seen a bottle tree in an American film before, it looks like something straight out of a Czech film or Easter European magic realist drama. Although some very small flaws, the film still works as a bleak and haunting surrealist portrait of middle America, Not to mention all the cool circus freaks like "the Enigma", with his body covered in blue tattooed puzzle pieces. This is definitely not a film for everyone, but for those who enjoy bizarre and challenging directors like David Lynch, Todd Solondz, Fellini and Jodorowsky. Even if you can't get into the sad story, it's still visually breathtaking. Just don't forget to have a box of tissues ready for this film to help soak up all the tears. I'm still haunted by the films strong and sometimes disturbing imagery.