ChickLit (2016)

The Worst Film Ever

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

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.

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.

In order to save a pub from financial ruin 4 men - who usually meet for their weekly domino-game there - decide to write a BDSM-novel (which in the movie is currently very famous with female readers) to earn the money the pub needs. Of course, such a novel would ruin a literary-professor's reputation as well as diminish the literary reviews of a literary critic. Thus, they decide to hire an actress who impersonates the writer of this novel. All seems to work out at first, but of course the plot lives from various difficulties.An audience used to over-dramatized Hollywood movies might find this movie rather calm and unimpressive. The characters are all lovingly drawn, the plot is entertaining but won't make your heart race. It's a lovely movie that makes you smile. Especially the music by Alex Britten is an enormous gem in this film!What I personally thought a little disappointing was the performance by the blond lead actress who - for my liking - seemed too detached. If you like a nice afternoon movie this is definitely it. And it surely leaves some good tunes stuck in your mind!

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.