Well, we always look for something new in cinemas. 90 per cent of all films are based on the same old contents. This was a little different, yet I won't say it was pure new. I enjoyed it, thought better than hundreds of boring films I've seen in the last few months. Surely it does not make sense in the real world. From the entertainment perspective, it delivered, but in the British style.It had wonderful characters and cast. That little girl from 'Golden Compass' all grown up. This is an adult comedy, but nothing was obscene. Quite nicely written story. Four friends who everyday meet in the pub is now trying to save it from closing down. So they have to raise money and they come up with an idea of writing a novel, but want to stay anonymous. That's where a young woman enters that changes the fate of the book, the pub and theirs.Not probably, but surely an under-rated film of the year. As well as under-noticed. If you can watch mindless Hollywood comedies, then it is much better than them in many ways. All you have to do is give it a try. Only disappointment was the end. I did not expect it to end just like that. I anticipated emotional conclusion. That would have changed the overall aspect of the film. Still very much a watchable film, so go for it.8/10

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.

I enjoy film and have broad and eclectic tastes and interests both in style and subject matter. I believe that a film with a modest budget can be very successful if the script is well written and structured, has effectively paced direction with well developed characters who are played well. Unfortunately this film has insufficient quantity of all of the characteristics mentioned above.Having read positive reviews however and noted the reputable high quality cast, many of whom I admired, I decided to overlook the low IMDb rating and take a chance. Unfortunately the main achievement off this film has been to rekindle my faith in IMDb ratings.It's described as a comedy. I didn't laugh and the story barely held my attention.

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.