This movie is absolutely dreadful. It was written and directed by one Julie Davis, who also has the ignominy of "starring" in it as the title character. The plot is a bunch of romance / relationship story clichés. The dialogue is stilted and obnoxious. All of the characters speak in the same manner, and their tired psycho-babble monologues all have one obvious source (Julie Davis apparently), and to make matters worse none of it is surprising or new or interesting or original in the least, just a bunch of witless repetition.This movie is billed as a comedy, but the jokes mostly fall flat. I should have turned the TV off 15 minutes into this thing, but sometimes I get the urge to "rubberneck" at ugly train wrecks like this one, all the while wondering exactly how much money was wasted in producing it, as well as wondering why the "Sundance" channel was airing it instead of a test pattern or an infomercial.

There are many engaging and titillating sequences in this low-budget production that is written, stars, is directed by, and co-produced by Julie Davis. But, it is as uneven and ultimately frustrating as any comedy you've ever rooted for to succeed. Since many other reviewers have done a thorough job of identifying and critiquing the maddeningly confusing inconsistencies of this subversively anti-feminist treatise masquerading as a stereotyped pro-feminist fictionalized autobiography that rails against society's stereotypes only to find that some stereotypes are stereotypes because they are true, I will merely add that I heard deafening echoes of past sellouts such as ABC's debacle called "The Great American Beauty Contest" and Jane Fonda's character "admitting" that all women only go to college to find husbands in the movie "Tall Story." [That was all just one sentence, folks!]What makes the above one-sentence summary such a shame is that writer Davis did seem to have some interesting ideas to convey and actor Davis conveyed some of them quite engagingly. More frustrating still is that Director Davis did an excellent job of pacing the movie and adding cute visual ideas on a low budget, and did a SUPER job of making satiric statements through wardrobe choices. Yet, Director Davis hadn't a clue how to direct actor Davis who, in turn, threw away some of the best lines written by writer Davis. It is unknown to what extent co-Producer Davis played in the ultimate cop-out decisions alluded to by the others in arriving at the unsatisfying ending that left so many of us feeling betrayed or cheated. But, at the same time, it is clear that Julie Davis is a woman of great wit, intelligence, and talent that is worthy of harnessing. Overall, this is fast-moving and enjoyable enough to spend 100 minutes watching. So, why not watch it on Showtime-on-demand, then arrive at your own conclusions?

Story about writing a book for all women just because one had some unhappiness and feels righteous enough to advise all women to avoid the mistake she herself made. Then about hypocrisy of doing what she advises others to NOT do. Then the obvious Howard Stern reference (maybe she in real life is a fan???) and the goody-goody exaggerations of this character. Then the sellout to the "happy ending". All in all a very bad story. But nicely shot.

Spoilers herein.How difficult it must be for a young writer/director/actor with energy, some skill and no ideas. So just write about one's self and use the current `intelligent' template of self-reference.That template has our writer playing a writer. The writer on screen is struggling with the same issues that vex the writer behind the screen: how to reconcile things that are `real' life with things that sell. A serviceable enough template, which in some cases has the hero in broadcasting or film of some sort. Here we have both writing and radio in a clash, each with their own take on how to distort reality for the market. They battle it out and transcend the marketplace (which in Amy's situation includes all of femdon).Could have been good, had edge, been worth watching. But the problem with the film is the same as what the film is about: the conflict between real meat and what sells. Davis decides to stick with what sells, which is the typical date material: boy and girl meet, have spats, find true love together and along the way have endearing, slightly comic complications edging toward titillation. Davis IS as likeable as say Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, and Sandra Bullock, indeed more so because she really does seem intelligent under the fluffy grin.But here, she picks the wrong side of the equation to emphasize, a decision that I suspect is directly related to funders. Wish she would have done in real life what she did in the film. Instead what we have is a paean to the complexities of reality that sticks to the simplicities of fictionTed's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.