...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.
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.
