You should definitely see it, unless you're one of those rabid anti-Hugh-Grant people. It's not up to novel standards, of course, but it's worth watching.
Hugh Grant's okay. He doesn't actually make much of an impression on me, to tell the truth, although I know I've seen him in stuff. I worry more about having not ever heard of this movie before. Unless it was super low-budget, that tends to spell bad things.
Muahaha, I corrupt your brain!
Evil person.
Hornby is definitely the darker, maler version of Helen Fielding. (I almost wouldn't call Fielding "chicklit," anyway, because to me chicklit implies bad/careless writing, and I think the Bridget Jones books are anything but, despite appearances.)
It implies bad writing? For me, it's categorized almost solely on the basis of what the plot revolves around; basically, I see it as the halfway point between romance novels and general fiction. In other words, at the core it's a romance, or is possibly about romances that go wrong, but it can afford to have subplots not related to love and the writing is generally better. Almost always there's a lot of wailing on the main character's part about how she's empowered now, but it's gotten her nowhere because SHE CAN'T FIND A MAN, and in the end that's what makes me generally hate it as a genre.
The more I examine my actual criteria for chick lit, the more I realize Hornby doesn't really fall into it. You're totally right below in that he takes a typical chick lit premise and inserts reality.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 05:50 am (UTC)Hugh Grant's okay. He doesn't actually make much of an impression on me, to tell the truth, although I know I've seen him in stuff. I worry more about having not ever heard of this movie before. Unless it was super low-budget, that tends to spell bad things.
Muahaha, I corrupt your brain!
Evil person.
Hornby is definitely the darker, maler version of Helen Fielding. (I almost wouldn't call Fielding "chicklit," anyway, because to me chicklit implies bad/careless writing, and I think the Bridget Jones books are anything but, despite appearances.)
It implies bad writing? For me, it's categorized almost solely on the basis of what the plot revolves around; basically, I see it as the halfway point between romance novels and general fiction. In other words, at the core it's a romance, or is possibly about romances that go wrong, but it can afford to have subplots not related to love and the writing is generally better. Almost always there's a lot of wailing on the main character's part about how she's empowered now, but it's gotten her nowhere because SHE CAN'T FIND A MAN, and in the end that's what makes me generally hate it as a genre.
The more I examine my actual criteria for chick lit, the more I realize Hornby doesn't really fall into it. You're totally right below in that he takes a typical chick lit premise and inserts reality.