Authors Anonymous

Kaley Cuoco was my main reason for being interested in this movie, even when it looked like a failure. She gives a great performance and is of course quite good-looking, especially in a tank top or shorts or both, or nothing but a man's dress shirt. She wears a spaghetti-strap top in one scene. But she has such a great personality. I won't say her looks don't matter because they are important to the plot, but they're not that necessary. And she's great with Henry, but not all that romantic. She wears glasses to read, but while I wasn't crazy about her first pair, her second pair look worse. No, in the photo representing the movie on IMDb, she's wearing a pair she tried but didn't like.

Dennis Farina once again reminds us how much we have lost. He's not a particularly likable character, but one we can love to hate. John K. Butzin (who, like Ed LaSalle, the most memorable character in a Mary Tyler Moore sitcom I can't remember the name of, uses his full name when talking about himself) , is quite annoying but still a pleasure to watch somehow. His misfortunes are hilarious, helped along by Tricia Helfer.

William is annoying and I don't mean that in a good way.

Teri Polo and I have a history. Her character in "Northern Exposure" was so unpleasant I all but quit watching the show. That's how bad it had gotten. And she's just as terrible here, at least to me. In the first scene she has pretty hair but not a pretty face. Later, with more makeup, she's somewhat good-looking. But her personality is really hard to take. She does have some good scenes that even I couldn't criticize. I believe people will like her. Just not me.

Chris Klein is someone you want to root for, but watching his difficulties is actually kind of fun. He's pleasant enough.

I was going to say the actress has one line but makes the most of it, but she actually has many more lines later and shows that she was capable of more.

Overall, it was pretty good.

Definitely a very "meta" film, considering that an untalented but successful actress (Kaley Cuoco) plays an untalented but successful writer. (One of the other characters likes her, but it is not made clear why!)

I think a lot of my disappointment comes from the total lack of a comeuppance for the know-nothing lead character, which for some reason I was expecting, like a punch line to a joke. The other thing that was lacking that could have made the lead character more interesting and likable was some personal growth. There is simply very little for the viewer to root for or even care about in this movie.

The premise was appealing, which is why I watched the movie, but it really failed to entertain and I actually just ended up feeling upset and angry that I had wasted time and money on this poorly made movie.

Writers, aspiring authors, and journalists seem to get flack no matter where they turn in an increasingly math and science driven world that, while undoubtedly improving the life and sanctity of humanity through unforeseeable technological and scientific innovations, still inherently neglects the humanity and the eccentric qualities that the aforementioned groups of people work to establish within nearly everything they do. In such times, where opportunities for jumpstarting their writing projects have been given more accessibility but, in return, less professional credibility, we logically turn to other writers to discuss this problem or, ambitiously enough, seek out films to help us deal with the common struggles of a writer, to which Ellie Kanner's Authors Anonymous seemed like a solid bet for a film attempting to profile a group of aspiring writers.

Authors Anonymous never really establishes whether or not it wants to be a practical account of a group of goofy writers whose ultimate goals are to get published and become recognized for what they do or if it the film wants to be a broadly done satire profiling the common caricatures of writers. I have a feeling the film leans more towards the second category than the first, however, that only makes my ongoing review even harsher, for the film not only squanders opportunities and commentary with this approach, when it should be overflowing with them, but also greatly diminishes the resonance this film could have with writers everywhere, myself included.

The film has a plethora of great stars, all of whom I hope to see in better films as soon as possible. The film revolves around a group of aspiring/struggling writers, whom gather at their authors anonymous meeting - although they openly state their names, which defeats the purpose of the group's name, yet I digress - to discuss their stories and their ambitions, while giving and receiving personal feedback. The group is run by Henry Obert (American Pie's Chris Klein), an amiable pizza delivery man and carpet cleaner, who is suffering from a wretched case of writer's block and disillusioned by his monotonous existence all the more. That is until he meets Hannah Rinaldi (The Big Bang Theory's Kaley Cuoco), a woefully dim but cheery and attractive writer who, while never reading a book in her life, let alone naming a famous author, manages to score a publishing deal for the book she wrote. Once she manages to become a regular at the authors anonymous (but not really) meetings, she is quickly envied by the other authors in the group, including the uptight David Kelleher (Jonathan Banks), the do-nothing William Bruce (Jonathan Bennett), and the annoyingly delusional but incomparably ambitious John K. Butzin (Dennis Farina), who aspires to one-up everyone in the group by looking to get his novel published and made into a movie, directed by Clint Eastwood, to disastrous results.

The way I see it, each author is supposed to represent a different kind of author we encounter or read about. While Henry is optimistic, he's also burdened by the inability to capture his thoughts adequately on the page, while Hannah is the kind of person who's ignorance and lack of any real fundamental knowledge of the field are neglected by others and, of course, she walks away with a publishing deal. Meanwhile you have David, who carries a tape recorder along with him to voice his spur-of-the-moment ideas, however, never actually using them, William, who is simply in it for the ride, talking a lot but never actually writing, and John, the writer who deludes himself by saying all is going well and on the up-and-up for his writing career when it's anything but.

Yet, writer David Congalton doesn't really acknowledge or dive into the purpose of these caricatures, making them lumber through tiresome setups with every scene, allowing their same flawed personality traits to be seen. This does nothing more than erect a tired, one-note joke where we become so caught up in the character's naivety and inherent stupidity that we don't care anymore. We came to see a version of ourselves, but all we get are the broadstrokes of actual human beings that exercise in that odd cinematic void where complete and total stupidity is passed off as reality. Not to mention, the film is also shot like a reality show, ironically adding realism to the one film this year that has about as much realism as Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Authors Anonymous bears some positives amidst a whirlwind of issues. The cast is always watchable and committed to their roles, regardless of how obnoxious or undercooked they are, the film bears the kind of original setups that you're interested in, even on a small note, just to see where they end up, and the film isn't without certain moments of humor. However, Authors Anonymous, like a muddled adventure book, lacks an identity or a resonance with broadly-drawn satire or attempts at a comedy authors can relate to, never identifying with either and unfortunately failing if classified as both.

Starring: Chris Klein, Kaley Cuoco, Johnathan Banks, Johnathan Bennett, and Dennis Farina. Directed by: Ellie Kanner.

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.

This is one of those movies that looks like it is written for writers, and it's not that its bad, but the target audience shifts away from people that normally watch movies.

A group of struggle-writers basically begins to break up when the youngest, hottest woman in the group wins the networking game and moves on to a better life.

If you're not familiar with L.A. / Hollywood culture, or not a writer, or unfamiliar with the road to fame, then you're not going to get the full effect of this movie.

I get a lot of it, and don't find it to be substantial.

Since literature and movies usually need a kind of conflict they center on, this movie is about a writing group breaking apart by jealous feelings.

The members of the writing group meet again and again to read and comment on each others writing. These meetings are recorded by a camera team - much in the way "like the Kardashians'" as one character would put it. In between these meetings the camera follows each member of the group on their quest to be read authors.

"Authors Anonymous" is listed as a comedy, though I most certainly would not categorize it as one. There was no chance to interrupt the movie with heartfelt laughter, a chuckle or even a smirk. Rather, one/I felt rather sorry, uncomfortable or bored by a plot that could be foretold and characters that where pure chliché.

I really like Kaley Cuoco on "The Bing Band Theory". I just felt a little disappointed that the character she plays in this movie is so alike to the one in the series. I'm very positive her range is much wider and it would have been interesting to see that. She plays her part uniquely just as everyone else in the movie does.

Still, this comedy is rather depressing. In case you are looking for something uplifting, this might not be the right time to watch "Authors Anonymous". In case you need a little Hollywood-reality insight topped with stereotypes, then enjoy!