Sonetto There were enough take-offs on both male and female behavior in relationships that neither gender need feel neglected. Witty tongue-in-cheek dialog that becomes funnier with each viewing. Performances by Julie Davis as Amy and Nick Chinlund as Matthew are realistically or perhaps even stereotypically contrasting but in an enjoyable way. The story says something too about our pop psychology, now hopefully more past than present, way of looking at human behavior. Worth a good look for laughs. I thought it was hilarious! Perky, well-shot, well-cut ... for a little film with a very limited budget. Julie Davis certainly shows her versatility as writer, director and star.

Scoval71 I was flipping and channel surfing the other night and this was on. I must have missed about 20 minutes, but reluctantly stayed until the end since there was nothing else to watch. Very bad. Profanity that is excessive and horrible acting from the two main players, Amy and Matt, or Julie Davis and Nick Chinlund---whoever they may be or were.... Man, they need some acting lessons and he needs to lose that incredible NY accent. The film was lousy. Did I say lousy......and the title...it shows the ignorance of the writer. Couldn't a better title be selected, unless it was meant to be provocative to lure viewers, although once lured, they have the option to escape!!!!

punkybrewster2002 I expected so much more from this film, as it was promoted by Sundance. But it is just another chick-flick where a strong willed woman realizes she needs a man to be complete and a loveless sexaholic man realizes that love is real. This film only furthers every single gender role pushed upon people from birth. It doesn't really do anybody any good, and it doesn't push them to think critically about anything. All together it was a disappointing and overrated film.

tedg 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.