...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.

Firecracker is about an abusive brother that terrorizes his family and others in a small Kansas town. The results are devastating to the family. The film is normally in black and white but switches to color during emotional scenes, which is meant to add to the drama and visual effects. While the acting is good, the screen play is a little bit of a yawner. There is a subplot about a roving carnival and an abusive owner who beats and disfigures his woman of choice. I really didn't take the time to understand the connection because the film was too thick with metaphor. Based on actual events, its understandable why this story was buried back when it happened. It's hard to imagine the abusive wack jobs depicted back in those innocent Andy Griffith days.

"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.