“Couldn’t the cameraman get any closer, like up the noses?  Shouldn’t it have been called ‘THE DISAPPOINTING CELL PHONE?”

Painfully boring.”

“The star of this film was a cell phone.”

“Slow, no story or character development.”

“Did not get the point of this movie.”

“A first - the guest was as dull as the movie.”

“Cell phones should be banned on-screen as well as in the audience.”

“Wild sound is so present and distracting, and yet I don’t really have a sense of place, just some vague city.  The pacing is so slow I want to explode.  She’s so passive/aggressive, it’s hard to watch.  Only when you’re on the rooftop does this feel like NYC perhaps.  Why so many close-ups? Feels claustrophobic.  The pigeon scene would make a good short film.  It was a beautiful scene.  Deadly slow!”

“Alternative title: MUCH ADO ABOUT LESS THAN NOTHING!”

“There was no theme, no character development, no point.”

“Low budget indy film that gives low-budget indy filmmaking a bad name.

“Could have been a fine short film, but this was a feature-less feature.”

“’When friends become lovers’ has certainly been done before, and certainly been done better. Everyone in this film has the inability to articulate, and unfortunately that includes the director.”

“80 minutes was too long.  Should have been 10 minutes.”

“80 minutes of waiting for something to happen.  80 minutes of cell phones, cars and ‘Are you ok?’ Lots of soulful looks and not much else.  Did they make up the dialogue as they went along?”

“This script must have been written by an illiterate!  The dialogue was boring and it was painfully slow moving.  We need to eliminate the words ‘like’ and ‘hey’ from the English language!”

“Too slow and uninteresting.”

“Although the story had potential, I found the cinematography and sound to be extremely distracting.  I found the constant scenes of automobiles passing by the blurred photography and loud peripheral street sounds to be an annoyance and a distraction from the story line.  I would not recommend this film, even though the acting was good and an interesting subject.”

“B.O.R.I.N.G.!  It was like watching wallpaper dry.  Was the pigeon scene an homage to Elia Kazan?  This was a terrible Q & A.  The director was mumbling too much.”

“Hey!  THE EXPLODING GIRL is an unqualified bomb.”

“I might have called this film THE IMPLODING GIRL.  This was a wonderful film, and gentle character study.”

“If this is what it’s like to be young, I’m glad I’m not!  What a bore.”

“Too many disconnects from scene to scene.”

“Subject matter was interesting and important.  Touching yet, a very slow moving treatment, which made it a bit annoying.  Is the city that noisy?”

“From a technical point of view this was successful.  Emotionally it was a void.”