Accueil
Films
Séries
Animés
À venir
Explorer
- Télécharger l'App
- Téléchargeur
Blogs

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

Télécharger slide

123movies search icon

muted

ChickLit

4.7

/10

464 notes

2016•1 h 36 m•United Kingdom

Four friends try to save their pub by writing a 'ChickLit' novel, with potentially disasterous consquences!

Comedy

Acteurs (18)

Christian McKay

Dakota Blue Richards

David Troughton

Polly Hemingway

Casting Director

Recommandé

Avis

Ngagnon 🦋

01/06/2023 03:04

Moviecut—ChickLit

Tshedy__m

29/05/2023 15:48

source: ChickLit

Naeem dorya

22/11/2022 14:26

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

Mohamed Hamaki

22/11/2022 14:26

Four guys who play dominoes in a pub have a disdain for popular "chick-lit" or "mummy *" 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.

Kissa

22/11/2022 14:26

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.

hasona_alfallah

22/11/2022 14:26

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 *' 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.

adzyimz

22/11/2022 14:26

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 * 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 a 4/10 The Melancholic Alcoholic.

mohamedzein

22/11/2022 14:26

Oh dear. Another writer/director movie (okay, they're not all bad, just most of them.) It's a strange little film with a great idea and some class actors - including John Hurt, bless! Love him but he must have done it for the money - but in dire need of some editing, rewriting, tightening, reworking and all the other stuff you do to make a so-so movie better. Read the blurb and within a couple of minutes of the movie you know what's going to happen. But the actors are good - hooray! - and it's probably that that made me watch to the end. There are some nice bits of dialogue but much does not further the plot or develop character and you feel - like the characters - that you're sitting in a pub waiting for last orders to be called. There are also some unbelievable character motivations and the writer has absolutely no knowledge of how the publishing industry works - particularly the timescale! It might have a message. I've no idea what it is but it is definitely last century! Notting Hill it's not.

Yassu

22/11/2022 14:26

This is a genuinely funny and affectionate movie made in the best tradition of recent British cinema comedy. The story line and plot are great, the acting consistently good, and, considering the minuscule budget it was apparently shot on, it looks and sounds as good as some of those 'big name' British films of recent years. I'm especially impressed by the pace of this, slow enough to give that affectionate feel, but tightly cut enough to give younger viewers a sense of pace. The critics were not kind, however I guess the 'Islington set' do not get to hang out in North Norfolk very often, and probably prefer their yokels as Wurzels caricatures! Give it a go - you'll get some belly laughs out of this one!

youtube : b3a9li ❤

22/11/2022 14:26

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-*. 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.