Firecracker (2005) watch online HD

I was fortunate enough to see this film twice - both the premier screening and it's subsequent showing both at the Raindance Film Festival, where it was nominated for the Jury Prize - Best Film. Unfortunately the sound was a bit problematic at the premier, due to a dodgy speaker (front left - the side I was sitting on) and so seeing it again really made a big difference to the film for me.

Karen Black (playing both religious mother called Eleanor, and a circus singer called Sandra) was wonderful in her dual roles, and Mike Patton I felt was more convincing as David (Eleanor's abusive alcoholic eldest son) than as Frank - the owner/manager of the circus.

The story centers around the disappearance and suspected murder of David, which is investigated by the Sheriff Ed (really well played by Susan Traylor), but also deals with the various unhealthy, abusive and controlling relationships that exist between the characters. The one relationship that seems to be nothing more than friendship is between Jimmy (Eleanor's youngest son) and Sandra, as they each strive for their own freedom from their abusive lives.

Eleanor tries to maintain normality in her family - despite her husbands declining health and David's abuse of Jimmy. Sandra strives for a normal life, to return home

and escape the circus, particularly the abusive Frank. The question is will they be successful?

Visually the film is quite beautiful - the opening shot of the prairie burning is just one example of the wonderful cinematography. A viewer might also recall "Pleasantville" in the film's use of B+W and Colour - the circus is always in colour, the town in black and white. It turns out to be quite a useful convention, on a number of levels, and does help to structure the story for the viewer.

I loved this film, mainly for the performance of Karen Black as Eleanor/Sandra, the visual feast of the beautiful cinematography, and the excellently plotted storyline (which is based on true events).

I forced myself to sit through the entire DVD, so it couldn't have been the very worst film I've ever seen. Still, I can't think of one that's worse.

I began to wonder if was a parody: one of those arcane, in-crowd extended jokes whose humor failed to penetrate my too-serious mind, but after reading the awards (!) and reviews, I have abandoned that theory. If it is a film-maker's joke, it has taken in a huge number of viewers.

Firecracker lacks even a shred of nuance. Every emotion is troweled on the screen melodramatically; every line emoted more on the nose than any soap opera utterance; every facial expression bulging over the top like a beer belly.

The characters and their motives are trite and utterly predictable. The fact that the story is based on real events does not excuse the miserable screenplay.

Performances range from amateurish to atrocious, excepting Susan Traylor's and Paul Sizemore's. Karen Black channels Gloria Swanson at her Sunset Boulevardian worst. Jak Kendall is all over the place, and not in a good way, particularly when he tries to portray nervousness: you will have seen many a seventh-grader act more convincingly.

The cinematography is bearable, though as overblown as the script and acting--which is to say, laughably inflated. The direction and editing give us excruciatingly long scenes that say nothing, but were evidently included because they satisfied some directorial fetish or clause in an actor's contract.

Altogether, this is a bloated, high camp, reprehensible waste of film and 112 tortured minutes of my time. I still can't quite believe it is meant to be taken seriously. What is serious, however, is this: If you haven't seen it, don't.

As a fan of film noir and detective movies, I am too often put off by modern attempts into the genre that try to replace atmosphere and intelligence by just having gratuitous nudity and swearing; the genre managed atmosphere without these in the forties and fifties but yet modern films seem to rely on them. With Firecracker however, everything works perfectly and, as such, the noir portions look exactly like they were made in the forties and fifties. Everything down to lighting, dialogue, and even the delivery of the lines. Even if the material and tone is darker and harsher than would have been allowed back then, it's the closest film to capture accurate film noir in today's cinema. One of the best detective noirs I have seen in ages. The story development is always going to be the most important thing and Firecracker gets it spot-on throughout, doing the proper thing of starting with a simple story and continually building it more and more complex as it goes. Unlike some other "classics", Firecracker manages to do this without ever losing the audience and I found the plot to be both rewardingly complex but yet still very easy to follow.

Needless to say, things are very dark and the script is convincingly dark, leading to an ending that is as depressing as I've seen – not so much in what actually happens but also in the wider implications for the characters that the credits prevent us from seeing. Director Steve Balderson does a great job of putting this story in a setting that produces a real strong sense of period but also manages to always be showing us the darkness coming through subtly. Of course it helps that he also has a great cast to work with. Karen Black is iconic in this role and, if I had to pick one film to act as an introduction to Black then it would be this film. She brings out her complex characters better than most actresses in the business. She's a living legend! Susan Traylor has less screen time but is just as impressive. Jak Kendall is unbelievably great for his first film. The supporting cast are all fine but really the film belongs to these three, with Karen Black being the stand out role.

Overall this is a very complex, mysterious film; it is dark and seedy without relying on swearing or nudity to set the atmosphere. The direction is great, with a real atmosphere and sense of time and place that is matched by a great collection of performances delivering a great script. A work of art.

"Firecracker" is not your regular film; it's done with a technique that is not common in the industry, and therefore has been and probably will be, both criticized and praised. The technique is used by showing realistic moments in merciless (and real) black and white and fantasy moments in dazzling colour. There are some of the most elaborate sequences of any movie ever made. This way of filming shows how the two opposite worlds become one world as the story lines merge. The plot itself does not trail far from the true story it's based on, judging by what's on the official web site. So it's anyone's guess as to what parts of the movie are dramatized and which parts are truth.

Visually, this movie is spectacular. The colors are scorching and add a sense of mystery to the film. The music is exquisite and the performances are perfectly played. This movie hit me in a really hard way.

It's impossible to stop thinking about this movie.

One of my new all-time favorite movies, though if had to choose only one film to bring on a desert island, I'd probably go for Moulin Rouge. The main appeal of Firecracker (and its main weakness, according to its detractors) is that the film can be viewed from many different points of view. As an almost traditional classic tragedy; as a straight detective story; as a character study of an imprisoned boy (though everyone in the cast is trapped by something); as a carefully paced thriller; or, as a surreal dream. All of those genres fit here. And they fit perfectly.

People have criticized Balderson's choice of firing Dennis Hopper in favor of Mike Patton as the lead, but I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the part(s): he's a genius, where he had the courage to play a self-destructive, negative character, with bitter realism.

Full of great, innovative ideas that I think will be copied over and over for years to come.

Karen Black and Mike Patton deserve Oscar nominations!

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.

"Firecracker" is the kind of film that never really appeals to a specific group of people. It doesn't really fit easily into any genre, and isn't the kind of movie that will enthrall those seeking simple entertainment from any film-going experience.

"Firecracker" is much more than any film, because not only is it genre-less, but it transcends the rules of any genre and becomes incredibly engaging.

Jimmy is a teen who just wants to be left to his own devices. He wishes to play piano, but is forced to hold back by his tormentor; his older brother David. David screams and yells, beats and rapes. And then something happens. A murder occurs in the secrecy of the White home.

So many people will despise this film, but there is nothing here to hate, I believe. Jimmy's world is black and white, but the amazing carnival he visits is an amazing palette of colors. The characters are all unique, yet oddly similar (some actors play more than one character, but for good reason).

There are many words that express this film; beautiful, twisted, dark, colorful, intense, real, gorgeous. But there is only one word that I believe really reaches the core of what this film is: HYPNOTIC.

Having watched this twice at the Raindance Film Festival in London, England, there is more to the film than meets the eye. There are symbols showing you different things, such as the blue-bottled tree and the mirrors all over the place. You may not realize it, but this film is really quite clever, using metaphors to the max. It is also interesting to note the use of blue and red throughout the picture.

Susan Traylor is the strongest performer in the movie. I agree with what everyone else has stated about Karen Black and Mike Patton, but in my opinion, Susan Traylor was the one who seemed the most correct in her depiction of the character. I liked the tempo of the movie and it reminded me of David Lynch very much. Only, unlike David Lynch's movies, this one made sense and somehow I could follow along.

An unusual film, but recommended if you want a film to think about. If you want a film to relax in, try Shrek or Shrek 2!

I saw Firecracker at the Fantasporto Film Festival, it was the main film.

The acting is superior all around, but to me the top actors were Karen Black (winner Best Actress) and Jak Kendall (should win Best Actor). Mike Patton and Susan Traylor are exceptional. In very few films does the illustration show so effectively that it can convey a story seemingly without any help from dialog or music. Bravo! I can see how some people would perceive the color scenes and Black and White scenes as confusing, but it reminds me of "The Wizard of Oz" and made sense. I like the fact that the film was bold, and that it made its argument contrasting story lines. Maybe people are thinking too hard. This is a beautiful movie.

Special Jury Prize award winner at Raindance, Firecracker's director Steven Balderson is masterful. There is one scene late in the movie that I will not spoil. It is one of the most simply brilliant scenes ever staged in a movie. I don't know if all the credit goes to Balderson or to Oscar nominee Karen Black, but there is a moment in the film where the suspense builds so beautifully it is like a ballet. Through skillful timing of the direction, the moment is impeccably played by Karen Black. It set the stage for an emotional train wreck of an ending.

Do not miss this movie.

The movie is incredibly gripping and an absolute must see.

The Biggest "small" movie ever made. That is an understatement. The term "independent film" conjures up images of low-priced film-making, unsteady shots, slackers, "cool" underdogs and story lines as pretentious as the filmmaker looking through the lens. When I think of an "independent film" I don't tend to think of high-class film-making. That is, until now. Never have I seen an independent film as outstanding as Firecracker. It isn't fare to compare Firecracker with other indie flicks. There is simply no comparison. Having seen Wamego: A Documentary, Making Movies Anywhere, I am astounded at the level of expertise summoned to craft this work of genius. The Balderson's seem really down to earth, too. That alone is something rare. Great job, guys!

There isn't much I can say about this film that others who disliked it haven't already said. The acting is awful during many parts, and the direction is even worst at times. The story was good, but the direction and acting of this film really took away from that. There were even moments where I would laugh, because the acting was so bad. If rumors are true that Dennis Hopper was fired so Mike Patton could play the two roles, I'm shocked. Mike Patton did alright for his debut acting performance, but it was still very weak. He was definitely not brilliant as some reviews claim. This film is not as great as it's hyped out to be, and I'd even say it's not worth your time or money.

This is really a movie that it's worth see. The movie is divided in 2 parallel parts that merge in the end. This parts are shown in black and white or in amazing vivid colors. It all make sense in the end. It's a great movie that makes you keep your eyes in the screen from the beginning to the end. If you have a chance to see the movie don't miss it out. It's full of great details in almost all scenes.

For the people interested in this movie due to have Mike Patton on the movie, Mike acts very natural in the movie, he has 2 roles in the movie, and in both cases he do his job very well. After see it it's hard to imagine someone else doing his job.

All the cast are great, Mike Patton, Karen Black (who received the award for Best Actress on Fantasporto), Jak Kendall, The Enigma and Katzen has them self's.

I could say a lot about this movie but i'm afraid to with so much explanation to tell you what this film is all about so i suggest you to see it if you can.

About the comment of the other user that review this movie, don't pay attention to what he said. It makes absolutely non sense. When we have nothing smart to say it's better we keep our mouth shut.

"Firecracker" is well known for taking a very long time to get off the ground, as we've been following it now for almost four years (and as excellently documented in "Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere"). Those years included: Balderson choosing Faith No More front man Mike Patton (in his acting debut) instead of Dennis Hopper. It is also well documented that this film once starred Debbie Harry (Blondie) and Edward Furlong (Pecker) but the director also ditched them in favor of newcomer Jak Kendall and Susan Traylor (Valerie Flake). So… what everyone wants to know: Did he make the right choice?

Before I answer, let me set the scene. Balderson spends much of the early screen time building up the family at the center of the tale. Photographed in stark B&W, exactly like an old movie from the Fifties, we are introduced to religious fanatic Eleanor (Karen Black), sheriff Ed (Susan Traylor) and brutal David White (Patton). Then, photographed in dazzling and eye-catching Technicolor (the color in the movie actually becomes a character itself) the carnival comes to town and young Jimmy (Jak Kendall) discovers its…"Secret World".

In that "Secret World", we meet Sandra, a mother-figure to the freaks in the show (also played by Karen Black) and carnival owner Frank (also played by Mike Patton). It's when Jimmy befriends Sandra that the two worlds intertwine and set off a disturbing chain of events (to say the least).

Balderson puts the focus of the story on the events of a true crime. "Firecracker" follows in the tradition of True Crime movies but the way it is shown is totally original and brave. It also has all the elements of the classic 'coming of age' tale, a suspense thriller and a classic character drama. As if that wasn't enough, Firecracker also exposes the dependence we put in our loved ones, and how any person is likely to try and shift the blame, or ignore it completely, if their loved one has done wrong.

So does it work? …UNDENIABLY.

Steve Balderson has turned this story, which could easily have been routine, into a complex study of a family that retains it's interest throughout due to the multiple themes on display.

Mike Patton was the absolute perfect choice to play David White. Dennis Hopper would've been outlandish and caricatured. Patton's portrayal is picture perfect; he carries with him an atmosphere of dread and morbidity throughout, even when he's not doing anything wrong. A role of this sort is difficult to get right, as it's all to easy to underplay it so it isn't effective, or to overstate it so it becomes ridiculous; but Patton gets the performance spot on. Jak Kendall, who stars in the role of Jimmy, also does well and delivers a established and assured performance (while playing someone juvenile and timid) that fits his character brilliantly. Susan Traylor is praiseworthy and one of the most realistic. Brooke Balderson, the director's sister, stars as the shaman in the field. When I first heard that, I had my doubts. But she delivers her character with sincerity and is one of the most natural actresses I've seen in a long time. Golden Globe Winning actress Karen Black, above all the others, delivers the finest performance of her entire career (and she's had some amazing roles, let's not forget). Being an actor myself, I will be studying her work in this movie alone for a long time. Some of the smaller roles look a little suspect at times, but the acting from the support is fine in any case.

The conclusion of the film has haunted me since I saw it. The green grass and red cape, for instance, is something I'll never forget. Thank you for making an extraordinary film.

I saw this film at one of its first showings and am constantly checking for a DVD release of it. I choose to review now because there is a lack of good information on it.

Firecracker stars Mike Patton, in his first actual acting role, for those of you that know Patton and his music, I don't think I need to tell you he's a very talented man that never fails to both enlighten and entertain.

Back to the movie, it is actually set in the very town that the story takes place. It takes place about 50 years ago and judging by the town's decor, it hasn't changed much since then. The plot is based on a true story and is very emotional, Jak Kendall and Mike Patton work great together and as you will see that is crucial for this movie to work so well.

Despite a low budget this movie contains really great visuals through the dynamic use of colour for different scenes. The camera-work is something you really need to see, especially if you're sick of the ADD-inspired-camera-angle-onslaught film-making of today.

Whether you're a Mike Patton fan that just wants to see if you're favourite front-man can act, or if you're in the mood for a solid movie with both a great story and visual; you'll be happy you saw Firecracker.

Hopefully, we'll get a DVD release soon. :)

I went to see this movie last night and ended up walking out (actually, I think I counted at least 10 other walk-outs before me). I must say I had been extremely excited about seeing it. It had no redeeming qualities, except for maybe the colors. Overacting dramatic scenes were met with laughter, that kid's face bugged the hell out of me. It was so unrealistic it was difficult to watch. I've never felt so duped in my life. The makers of this movie should be banned from ever making another. No wonder they can't find a distributor! It sucks! Don't see this movie. Don't give them your money. don't see this it's horrible! My girlfriend hated it too.

This film raises eyebrows. Then puts them down. It has people in it that you're familiar with, like Jane Wiedlin (Go-Go's), Kathleen Wilhoite (Angel Heart), Karen Black (Easy Rider), the latter being the most professional of all. It has a story, but it isn't really interested in telling it to you: there's trouble in a family, a blond guy belittles his younger brother for wanting to play piano in a circus show. The star of the show is in trouble too, she's in tight grip of her master. What could've happened if somebody was to rip off Twin Peaks, Santa Sangre & Requiem for a Dream? This... BUT: The scenes drag - total length almost 2 hours - why? Actors look lost as if directed in wrong places. Dialog - boring filler (had this film been silent, it'd be better). Shocks - don't shock. The good points now - Mike Patton. He looks as if he tries hard to have fun playing his characters, even though he's no actor. Photography is very good and rich. And the "humorous bits" in Firecracker are actually pretty funny. Just for Mike Patton completists only. Sorry guys, hope your next movies are better.

One review said "all style and no substance". I used the same words with my friend only 3 minutes before. Not a coincidence. This is the biggest rip-off(or pointless homage at least) of Blue Velvet(and Twin Peaks) ever created. Which really enrages me cause David Lynch is my favorite director. The acting in this is atrocious. Some of you will be allured by the indie style it's shot or the quirky/dark subject matter and I suppose you'd like David Lynch too. Or perhaps you just dig the shock value of this type of movie. I hope you see one of his films and see how it takes more than just bizarre imagery to make something brilliant. What he does is brilliant and distinctly him. Yea i know maybe i didn't do my research, it could be an homage which is a sweet gesture. Regardless, this movie is clowshoes drizzled in failsauce.

I will just hint, in a brief paean, to Firecracker's greatness. The density of thematic material, the multiple levels of meaning within meaning, and the intensity of the themes it deals with are nearly overwhelming: The nature of friendship, the effect of death on existence and on the breathing, the relation of beauty to desire and greed, appearance versus actuality, the spiritual and the physical, the yearning to break free, the nature of reality---need one say any more? There is not one film, to my knowledge, that says so much, and asks so many questions about, these fundamental issues. It may be true to say that the film asks more questions than it answers, but questioning is the beginning of the road to understanding. Watch this film a few times. It is a breathtakingly magnificent piece of art, with a stunning plot to boot.

After years of waiting, I have finally seen FIRECRACKER. After all this time, the production delays, the rumors, the web site teasers, I finally get to answer: Does it live up to the hype? The answer to that question is a successful YES. This is, so far, the best film I've seen this year, and it deserves its place among other cinematic masterpieces.

Although I had been looking forward to this film, based entirely on it being Mike Patton's acting debut, I must admit I was unsure about it at first. But my misgivings were quickly put to rest within the opening scene, where we are immediately, without warning, thrust into the film, and I stayed enthralled throughout. Patton was excellent, but the movie was so much better than I expected, I was more interested in the story.

It's appropriate in a dream-like movie to play to the fantasy, rather than the reality. We are given hints that this is a dream Jimmy, played flawlessly by Jak Kendall, may be walking in, since it looks so radiant and unreal. First of all, the characters in the dream look a lot like characters from his real life - Karen Black and Mike Patton pull double duty - reminiscent of THE WIZARD OF OZ, but with less alteration. Secondly, in the way the narrative unfolds, it's played like a dream, complete with characters that seem to stem from Jimmy's psyche - and his point of view. When Jimmy enters his "dream state", he begins to see in color, and slowly the truth is revealed. David's cruelty is always in back of Jimmy's mind, not just in the flashback scenes - though I propose that the entire carnival sequence is a giant flashback - but in all the other scenes. Plus, all the other women he comes across are meant to remind him of his mother and how Mike Patton, in either role, has hurt them. Finally, Karen Black's performance is strong enough to garner two Academy awards - for best actress and best supporting actress.

Firecracker probably would have been watchable if I was a cinematography student since I could tell a lot went into the making of the movie from a director's standpoint. However, since I am not a cinematography student, I fell asleep in my lounge chair about halfway through waiting for something good to happen, which never did, unless you count the scene where the big brother enters the carnival trailer and assaults both the woman and his little brother. The screenplay was billed as suspenseful and Hitchcock-like on the movie jacket, but you knew from the first 5 minutes that big brother was buried under the storehouse. The only thing you didn't know, until about halfway through, was that mother actually killed him, instead of the younger brother who should have, except in fact he WAS a sissie just like big brother said at the dinner table. Don't waste your 3 dollar movie rental fee. I thought about actually asking for my money back when I returned the video.

Until "Firecracker," the age of the last years of great American Films. I say Films because when we converse of movies nowadays, we talk about blockbusters that make hundreds of millions of dollars, the smallest amount of controversy, and are consistently dizzy crowd pleasers with whacked-on endings.

Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Bogdanovich -- all household names in those days. Before Spielberg and Lucas came along, not a single one of these made movies engaging the "summer blockbuster tradition," and unlike Spielberg or Lucas, they have a body of work filled of high artistic superiority with minimal special effects and an eternal mark on future generations.

Steve Balderson is another one of those directors, and with "Firecracker," he reaches a directorial triumph even though it seems to be only his second Film. One can only imagine what kinds of Films he will put out in the future. Thankfully he appears young enough to have many more ahead of him. He seems to be the only director working without the demand of the "happy ending" or re-shoots in order to be politically correct. Made by anyone else, "Firecracker" would have lost its devastating punch.

I am shocked this movie could be made today for reasons stated above. I'm thankful Balderson's vision prevailed. "Firecracker" is a Film about human darkness, and here, the envelope is pushed all the way through, making this film rank as one of the best American Films in the last few decades.

Mike Patton and Jak Kendall are brilliant in their acting debuts. There's too many obvious spoilers in recounting the plot of the film, in explaining why their performances are so flat-out stupendous, and how you are left feeling by film's end. "Firecracker" is a uniquely personal film, not only for the makers, but for a broad array of viewers who like me have latched onto its tragic story.

"Firecracker" is after making magic, and it succeeds wonderfully. The way the carnival seems to glow in unearthly splendor as Jimmy sees it, his eyes glowing strangely too, is excellent.

You may not like this film the first time you see it, but if you are left disturbed and uneasy from the experience, you owe it to yourself to see it again. "Firecracker" is utterly timeless.

This is going to be a true American classic. I just saw Firecracker in Kansas City at a private showing. I've been looking forward to this movie for years now. And even with expectations, I was blown away. This is a triumph of film technique and acting. All around this was an exceptional movie. So many scenes in the movie were pure visual cinema, telling the story with little dialogue. Some people in the crowd didn't recognize Mike Patton and Karen Black played dual roles. I knew and my friends knew, but I thought that was amazing. this film reminds us that movies are a visual medium, despite their literary roots. I was fascinated by the camera work and by all the silence. Even when there were no sounds this story is very loud. The Lynch references are beside the point in my mind. Firecracker's style is terrific and original! A much more intelligent eye than Lynch ever had, in my opinion.