Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Wonderful character development!

Fantastic!

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

I've seen this film described as Mumblecore, I think it is a useful starting point to describe the film, though I think it has marked differences. Both this movie and Mumblecore movies in general concern relationships between young white heterosexual folks with relatively privileged upbringings, who are undergoing changes in their lives, or are stuck in the Doldrums hoping for the wind of change. The thing is that Mumblecore often has a warts and all approach, and a comic aspect. So you might get a boy and a girl having a conversation about the internet porn they watch. The difference with The Exploding Girl is that, largely the characters in this movie are shown in a positive light, employing a lot of discretion, and there's no attempt to tickle your funny bone, plus the movie often actually looks really good (as opposed to the hand-held shakiness of Mumblecore).The two main characters are Ivy and Al. Ivy is studying at Ithaca, but on a break, whilst Al is a friend of many years who stays with her over the period. Al is studying evolutionary biology at college and talks about Goldschmitt's theory of hopeful monsters, which I thought was a really good metaphor for the stage of life Al and Ivy are at, i.e. going from being really good at being kids to learning how to be really good as adults. A hopeful monster is a missing link in evolution between different more steady lifeforms.Ivy has seizures and is on medication so she has to be careful about drinking, which makes it difficult to engage with a lot of the party life and experimentation that happens at college. Al is sympathetic with this and so they spend time hanging together. Both of them have different romantic interests but seem to do have the potential to do really well together. They're both great young people, which is the thing I liked about the movie, that it showed how great they were. I liked the writing, little things like Al recording his own songs on a tape recorder, with rather overstated lyrics! I felt kinda envious at the end because I wished when I was that age I could have shown a girl the things I was proud about (and vice versa). At one point Al went to see a Zed and Two Noughts (described as an English film called Zoo) with some friends. I watched that alone at about the same age.They're both pretty gentle and thoughtful. The main reason I wanted to write a comment about the film is that it made me feel like being a bit more gentle and thoughtful. Corollary to that was that I went out and bought a friend a doughnut. It had jam and cream in it, when I came back he said he didn't like cream.

Ivy (Zoe Kazan) is epileptic and returns home to Brooklyn on summer break from college. Her friend Al joins her to sleep on her couch when his room is rented out by his parents. She struggles to stay in contact with boyfriend Greg. Greg gets into a car accident with his high school friend Rebecca and decides to stay with her in the hospital. Ivy starts hanging out with Al.Don't get me wrong. Zoe Kazan is lovely. She's beautiful and has a charm about her. It doesn't mean that watching her alone for most of the movie is particularly exciting. She has some interesting phone calls. She really needs the second to be in more of the movie and he needs to be played by somebody more compelling. I understand the idea of being alone in a crowded city and losing one's connection. However, this movie lacks the drive to propel it.

I wanted to love this film. In fact, the opening was quite breathtaking with the flashes of sunlight coming in through the car window. I also liked the plot idea of two friends and the possibility they just might be perfect for one another. But, it didn't all come together for me. There was something missing from this film, and the more I think on it, I realize that the only fully-fleshed character was Ivy. Greg, who you never see, is flat and predictable. You only hear him talking to Ivy in broken lies over a cell phone. He's barely explained.Greg's poor treatment of Ivy is supposed to be in stark contrast to Al, who adores Ivy and has known her since eighth grade or something. I got sick early on of the filmmaker pointing out how they seemed to complete each other with their sharing of a milkshake, pizza slice, cigarettes, earphones, and Al's readiness to come home whenever Ivy wanted him to. It was over-the-top, especially when early on a family friend mistakes them for a couple. I disliked how a conversation with Greg was often followed by a caring conversation with Al. I thought I could figure out on my own who the good guy was supposed to be.Everything about Al's character seems to have been created just to highlight how perfect he would be for Ivy. His lack of a back story is troubling. Who is he? Why does he not have a place to stay (or, why was his room rented and because of that, no mention of his parents or why he's in the city for the summer)? I wanted to know more about him! Also, why was epilepsy important in the film? I thought this would be central to the plot and it barely is. Ivy goes for blood work that is never reported on, and during a grand mal seizure the camera is angled so that you see the side of Ivy's arm and Al's back. In closing, though so much is hammered home in terms of how Ivy and Al would be a great couple, a lot of key details are forgotten, or left for the viewer to fill in on her own. You end up ultimately not knowing what this film is trying to say. I left this film caring no more about the characters than I did in the first scene. The filmmaker saturates the story with "look how perfect they are for each other" innuendo, but doesn't quite deliver in terms of other important details. Disappointing.

I don't like "movies" shot on video, and this one is no exception. Its semi-improvised dialog was also a barrier to appreciation, as well as the fledgling director's pretentious approach to photography.Except for interiors, nearly all the barely-edited shots are long shots using very shallow focus - a technique I thought went out in the '60s. The cast's conversations are shot as if using a hidden camera (the hi-def RED camera is used here), from across the street with intervening cars or pedestrians frequently blocking the principals from our view. Add to that protagonist Mark Rendall's speech impediment (I counted him stating the word "like" 25 times in less than a minute) and you have distancing of the viewer taken to the extreme.Our heroine played OK enough by Zoe Kazan (she won a dubious Best Actress award from the lowliest of film festivals, the must-miss Tribeca event, which doesn't even take place in Tribeca anymore) remains a blank. She's an epileptic and sure enough, has too many beers, causing a seizure late in the film, but I didn't find that potential disability handled with any insight or relevance to the surrounding film. The story's emphasis on her also was a drag; it reminded me of that Golden Age of porno (now several decades back) when one sometimes experienced a horrific moment, usually during the second or third reel, of realization: "We're going to be stuck looking at this solitary girl for the whole movie!".Mercifully short, about 75 minutes after removing the slow-slow padding of the end credits, the feature had only two good scenes: one rooftop checking out the pet pigeons that starts as a too-obvious homage to Zoe's grandpa Elia Kazan (classic Saint/Brando scene from ON THE WATERFRONT) and ends up improbably as a Werner Herzog homage, capturing the strange abstract patterns created by flocks of birds in formation that was the signature image of Werner's 2004 film THE WHITE DIAMOND. The other scene I enjoyed was a simple finale ring shot of the hero & heroine asleep in the backseat of a car, unconsciously clasping their hands together.Low points were a "gee whiz" visit to a SoHo building supposedly once the site of Nikola Tesla's shop -like so many Manhattan non-landmarks it looks like nothing now; and the endless use of cell phones, one of which permitted an entire performance (Zoe's heel of a boyfriend Greg) to be literally phoned in. I am also nominating THE EXPLODING GIRL as the feature film with the lowest costume budget in recent history: it looks like they spent about $3.95 for the heroine's and hero's rumpled, slept-in crappy outfits; ditto ALL the extras (who obviously wore theirs from home).