MovieChat Forums > Firecracker (2005) Discussion > Really Quite Awful

Really Quite Awful

posted 17 years ago by OldCoachCrow
4 replies | jump to latest

I didn't really know anything about Firecracker before checking it out from the county library. Generally I don't look to spend two hours of my life with something if I think I'm going to hate it beforehand, so I was hopeful about finally seeing it.
So I'm totally clueless about any attempts to smear the filmmaker or anything like that, but I'm obliged to mention what a horrible film Firecracker really is. It's like someone took equal parts of L Frank Baum and David Lynch, threw them in a bucket, and let the elements wreak havoc.
Truly horrible acting, with the exception of Kathleen Wilhoite in her smallish role as a neighbor lady. From Karen Black one expects a kind of grand guignol, but I certainly expected more from Susan Traylor. Back in the early 1980s I listened to Faith No More on college radio, and I didn't even put it together that the FNM vocalist and the dual embodiment of evil in Firecracker were the same guy. The amateur as Jimmy, just abysmal, much like the overall direction of the dialogue from Balderson.
That's enough piling on, and likely more attention than Firecracker deserves. I imagine its fans view themselves as misunderstood victims of society while they wait at the tattoo parlor for their newest bit of cultural imperialist ink. Firecracker's the kind of production that gives indiefilm a bad name. See Keane or Down to the Bone instead.

[–] cat_sidhe 17 years ago

I'd have to agree. I saw this as my interest was piqued with the interactive mystery they running online on the movie's site a while ago. Plus, I'm probably what you'd call a Mike Patton fan (just not one of the idiotic ones), and I almost needed a shame pillow for this one. It was terribly boring. And no, I'm not opposed to slow movies. This one just had no point, and awful acting. And there was also no mystery whatsoever.

I've definitely seen worse movies, but I can't remember when last I was this disappointed with a movie.

[–] haapaq 17 years ago

Yeah I must admit I was quite disappointed. I watched it a second time a couple days ago and it was even worst. I thought the acting butchered this film. I think the film could have been much better with some actors who are actually talented. Using Mike Patton was the only smart thing this director did. Patton did an awful job, however his name brought the film plenty of attention.

[–] Shayenna 17 years ago

I didn't find Mike bad at all, they were only allowed to do their scenes in just one take, and the director told Mike exactly how he wanted it done, so he was just following what the director told him to do. I thought he was very good as David, the alcoholic abusive brother, and hammy as heck as Frank the carnival owner (and usually carny folks are), but for his first acting gig, and doing 2 roles, I loved him in it! His appearances lit the screen up for me actually, it just got boring when he wasn't onscreen.

It's always funny, until someone gets hurt, and then it's just hilarious!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]