Since it is really impropable that I'll ever get to see this movie, I would gladly read some comments on Mike Patton's role and his acting abilities. Just my sheer curiosity.
shareI thought his acting was fine. I don't know what his acting background is, but he seemed pretty natural. He had good delivery and mechanics. Not a bad job at all. I've definitely seen worse.
shareNot as improbable as you might think... I just saw the DVD available for rent today at my local Blockbuster.
shareHe was fine as the older brother, David, but he was horrendous as the circus leader. Terribly overdone. The only thing the latter performance was missing was a long cape for him to swoosh as he left the room.
By the way, the whole movie sucks and is really not worth the hunt.
[deleted]
I just rented this movie, and watched it last night, and I actually didn't think the movie was that bad that people are writing about...it was weird, but quite interesting.
Mike Patton was actually pretty darn good in both his roles to me, for his first acting gig, my husband and I really were impressed, and hope he does more acting, he's enjoyable to watch.
A very bizzare but creative filmand Patton did well as thw older brother but overacted as the circus leader. I think Balderson wanted him to act that way but good old Patton did ok for his first movie
watch for vipers and poison snakes
Yes, the director said Mike was told what to do, how he wanted it, and he did it, they only had one take to do it, and that's all he gave them, I didn't think it was overacting, they are corny folks anyway, the carny folks, especially around that era, they had a very sinister way about them.
It's always funny, until someone gets hurt, and then it's just hilarious!
i love patton but he can't act for sh*t. didn't think he could. and any1 that thought he could act or thought he did good is retarded. he even admits he did bad, but it was something new, different, and exciting for the general, and we all know how he likes new, different, and exciting things, so he did it. mike patton is god...when it comes to music. but for all the million patton fans out there SHOULD still go rent/buy/borrow Firecracker and watch it. tripped out cheap indie film based on actual events. it's worth it.
share[deleted]
mike patton did much better than i expected him to, although his acting has certain flaws. he was just perfect as david, but overacted as frank so much that he literally reminds me of some evil lord in a fairy tale adaptation or something.
shareHaha no... sorry. I've been a huge Patton fan for years, but his acting makes Shatner look subtle. Seriously. I was rolling on the floor laughing at every line... so horribly over the top.
That said, his bad acting was the best part of the film. I couldn't wait for him to have another scene because I was laughing so hard every time.
he is a bad actor, but you're underrating him big time man. as i said, he was good as an immature, agressive david and the character could easily hide his overacting, but as frank, he really would be better off being expressionless or something. however, he is not the worst in this movie...
and yeah, karen is overrated.
he's convincing as the unstable older brother and *beep* as the crazy circus guy.
you're not important,
being unique is a concept
He was perfect as David. He did Frank over the top a bit but that's how he was directed more than anything. I thought he was really impressive considering it was his first movie, he was really sinister and dark.
shareAs David - so-so, managed to stay afloat... had it been a bit part with worse acting spells cut out, it might even been impressive; as Frank - absolutely horrendous. Ridiculously bad... the less said about it the better.
And film´s overall a Lynch wannabe if ever there was one - and it is a bad movie. Funny thing is that Ebert who usually hates Lynch gave this piece a positive review. He´s quite nuts you know.
[deleted]