Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

huh_oh_i_c Four friends are trying to save the pub of one of them (Tom Palmer or Chris), by writing a so-called chicklit novel, since there's so much money in it. The pub is their place to play dominoes. They do it, but then they have to produce a fake writer, pretending to be the real writer. They ask an actress, the sister in law of one of them to play that role (Dakota Richards or Zoe). It all goes well, until ....The term it self, "chick lit" is derogatory, since it assumes that low brow literature needs the word "chick" in front of it. We could let that go as marketing or recognizability.When Zoe finds fame and glory because the novel is being adapted into a movie, she decides to play the lead herself, a BDSM role with some nudity. Here, the movie really has ethical problems, because Chris (who has fallen in love with Zoe) asks her to not play that role.So, to get this straight: She saved his pub to the tune of 300 000 pounds, and now that she has done so, she has to go back to being subordinate again....just because he can't take her playing a nude role? She, a struggling actress, finally finds success and is independent of men, but now she can't be because he can't take her doing sex scenes? Bizarre. Oh wait no, that's simple hypocrisy.Other than the message, the acting and fast moving plot are fine, so it's a4/10 The Melancholic Alcoholic.

Michael Ledo Four guys who play dominoes in a pub have a disdain for popular "chick-lit" or "mummy porn" as they call it, like that "50 Shades of what's it called." The syntax is poor, but it is popular. They discover they need 300,000 pounds to keep the pub open for the sake of the community of Holt, Norfolk. Our four critics opt to write their own novel, with each writing a section and then connecting them. The disjointed novel has an appeal and they get a contract with the catch being the author must make public appearances. They hire Zoe (Dakota Blue Richards), the sister-in-law of one of the authors and a love interest of another. She is an out of work actress.While the topic was humorous, the execution was not. The film was more of a light drama, than the comedy it should have been. It fell short of being a chick-flick even though there was a love interest. The characters were not fully developed. You can not say "Amazon" in an independent book store. Should have been funnier with that cast. A missed opportunity.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

stevepat99 Actually, a fun premise. Several friends, most well read, come to the rescue of their favorite pub which is on the verge of closing its doors. They plan to write a 'mommy porn' romance genre book. A young sister-law actress wannabe is tagged to front the plan as the supposed author.Some great actors in an overall fine cast. Also, some nice belly laughs as the plan goes forward with each of the men writing one or more chapters of the book.The movie goes off track with major plot holes. First, a movie version of a book almost always takes years before shooting begins. Yes, they mention fast tracking this book into a movie but no fast track can turn years into days or weeks. Utterly, ridiculous.The book takes off with huge sales, women shown reading the books all over the city and in droves, a smash hit true page turner including a major TV guest appearance by the 'author.' Now, remember this is about a trashy, sexy romance novel. Yet, we are told that only a week or so later the public decided the trashy novel was 'trashy nonsense', they turned on it and tanked the book. Utter rubbish. This is totally absurd and has never happened except for those few cases where the author committed such as fraud or plagiarism.Of course, if the book tanked a week or two after its release this also contradicts the 'fact' that the movie version of the book had already progressed to actual filming? Plot holes one could drive an 18 wheeler through.One review incorrectly notes the girl/author screws the guys by making deals, for new books etc. around them. However, they are later told she was offered such deals but rejected them.Better ending would have found the girl getting a Hollywood acting gig, her first love, and giving up further writing.

christopher-39349 I watched this film based on it's tag line. It was a good premise, but the acting wasn't great and it was a little ham-fisted.Plot: several literary types (a gay book shop owner, an English professor, a local reporter and a publican) band together to write mummy-porn. They do so to save the local pub.*spoilers*; obviously they suddenly need to have a female author. Now this could have been a ripe area for exploration. Whenever a woman has needed a male front-man to sell something there's some exploration of bias and sexism in the industry. But that's not even acknowledged.Then there's the front-woman. A struggling actress. So they set her up with fame and fortune and all she has to do is 'act'. But apparently that's too taxing for an actress and she is portrayed as the victim. She is cruel to them, betrays their trust and then tries to financially screw them.In the final scene, she doesn't even apologize but is given a job in the saved pub.It could have been really fun. Like a literary Full Monty. But each step was ham-fisted and obvious. The actress was totally unsympathetic and the four authors were continuously dumped on. It was great to see the gay book store owners, but even that was a little rough. It would have been nice to explore the differences between male and female tastes, particularly as some of the authors were so unfamiliar with the genre.Disappointing.