Tout feu, tout femme

I picked this movie up looking for some old titles with Michelle Meyrink who some might remember from such films as 'Real Genius' and 'Valley Girl.'

In Nice Girls Don't Explode, Meyrink plays April Flowers, a teenage girl who is convinced that she has pyrotechnic hormones, in that whenever she is around guys, some kind of fire breaks out, leaving her utterly embarrased and afraid to show any sort of affection towards courting boys, especially Andy (William O'Leary) (who is sometimes annoying at parts), who is sure that she is mistaken about her firestarting capabilities. He is sure that April's mother (Barbara Harris) is responsible for her daughter's mishaps, setting fires so guys won't want to go near April. But how does he expose April's mother's overboard techniques in overprotective parenting?

Meanwhile, a real pyromaniac named Ellen (Wallace Shawn), floats around in the story as a frustrated and lonely fellow looking for some human interaction. He often walks around igniting fires when his attempts to converse like a normal human being fail.

I don't think this movie is as bad as the previous reviews have stated. First of all, it is a very cheap movie. Though the fact that a mother still treats her 18 year old daughter like she's two years old (take a look at her room) is pretty disturbing, it is supposed to be an exaggerated story about a girl who's mother just can't seem to let her grow up, especially when it comes to dating. The story has to do a lot to carry interest, too, being that there are times when you wonder that in the 18 or so years of her life, April never ever seemed to suspect anything of her mother? But once again, the story is supposed to be excessively exaggerated, pushing itself along on devices of stupid comedy. That's all. It's a no brainer movie that's sure to get a few laughs out of you, no matter how stupid, particularly with Wallace Shawn's character, Ellen. I definitely recommend the movie if you want to see something with Michelle Meyrink, as she is the typical Meyrink shy, but funny girl.

Mothers and their daughters always have special relationships. Well, this one is a bit more special than most. Although Mrs. Flowers seems a bit nicer than Margaret White (Carrie's mom), she is actually more cruel. Margaret just traumatized her daughter about sex in the home and had the guts to be straightforward about it. Mrs. Flowers has brainwashed her daughter into thinking that not only will she explode if she ever "goes all the way", but has taken steps to ensure that her daughter *knows* that just becoming sexually excited will cause fires. April Showers obviously manages to thwart her mom in the end, because when one fails to completely traumatize a daughter, you still have your grandaughter's head to mess with

It saddens me this film wasn't better received, because it's quite a sharp satire with a really unique perspective that doesn't feel like anything else I've seen and is really well put together!

Mainstream people with won't like this. But if you have off-kilter sensibilities and like to watch with your brain, there's a lot in here to latch onto. It's very good at giving you room to think, and planting seeds, and building suspense, and having unexpected payoffs. All with a surreal dreamlike tone and managing to stay humorous during remarkably disturbing content.

I'm impressed and I recommend this a lot!

In that first scene following the first date we see April go on, we can easily guess at the actual nature of the plot, a guess which is confirmed within the next several minutes of the first act as the film shows us exactly what's going on. That bare-faced storytelling doesn't preclude the possibility of this still being fun, but it does mean that the most unique idea it had going for it has been deliberately hamstrung within about twenty minutes, and the actual nature of the plot is about as common as the house fly. And the thing is, this continues to be the ethos that 'Nice girls don't explode' adopts with regards to other plot ideas, its scene writing, and its characters. Especially with that plainspoken tenor in mind, the writing of other plot ideas, scenes, and characters quickly grows tiresome rather than amusing. Moreover, instead of the cleverness this could have employed in its storytelling and comedy, there's a substantial mean streak coursing through the feature - and animal cruelty, tinges of racism and homophobia, and light treatment of bestiality and sexual assault are the least of it.

The premise sounds fun, but the end result isn't, except maybe in mild fits and starts. The nearest I came to laughing (and still didn't) was a scene at the one-hour mark, which feels like it should be the climax; instead of a few minutes, however, there are more than twenty left in the runtime at this juncture. There was so much potential here, but it feels from start to finish like Paul Harris' actual screenplay is straining to conjure workable ideas, and the best the writer could come up with was sorry, meager, forthright meanness; gags and jokes so cheap that they don't elicit a laugh even once, let alone upon repeated use; and beats and ideas so outrageous as to be nonsensical and further quash the entertainment value. Harris seems to have a few writing credits to his name, though for as awful as his ideas were here, I don't know how he managed to make a career out of it at all. For as awful as his ideas were here, I don't know how his screenplay ever got picked up for production. Director Chuck Martinez and the cast, including the inimitable Wallace Shawn and the familiar visage of William O'Leary, make the most that they can of the material, but can only do so much.

Those operating behind the scenes turned in fine work, sure. The effects stand out most, and the art direction, costume design, hair, and makeup are lovely. Yet these qualities only get one so far. I expected a good time when I sat to watch, but time and again weak writing dampened my enjoyment until my overall opinion turned south. I suppose I would have to watch more titles that Harris contributed to as a writer to discover if he ever found his knack in the medium, but after seeing what he whipped up for 'Nice girls explode,' I don't particularly want to walk down that path. I'm glad for those who appreciate this more than I do, but I think the possibilities of the concept are thoroughly wasted outright, and the screenplay is too poor at large to make this count for much of anything. As far as I'm concerned, whatever it is you're hoping to get out of this, keep looking elsewhere instead.

You watched a movie called "Nice Girls Don't Explode" and your complaining? What did you expect?

It was what I expected. Cheap? Yes, but bonkers and as funny as some other slapstick titles.

I expected it to be daft and quite enjoyed it's lunacy.

If you took the plot seriously and judged it to be too simple or weak you should stick to mainstream or predictable comedies, and there are, of course, many much better so don't watch it if you want sophistication.

The title should intrigue those with a sense of the ridiculous, that's me.

It's certainly different!

If you watch it, regardless of what you make of it, you are guaranteed to tell people you've seen a movie called "Nice Girls Don't Explode"....