So, though not spectacular, that book was cool and very (very) romantic (which is a good thing). I'd say that in the scale of contemporary romance novels--in which the minimum is 0 and the maxim Attachments*-- this one was good and totally funny, but not completely original. 
 You Had Me at Hello is the story of Rachel and Ben's relationship's bad timing. They met at uni (MANCHESTERS'!) and are best friends for 3 years. After that, they don't see each until they reencounter at the beginning of the novel, 10 years latter. The novel then tells the story of present day and past simultaneously. I liked the balance and how this format provided two interdependent climaxes--almost if you were reading about two different love stories. Tbh, though, my favourite bits were the ones from the past. (And only for them the book is worth reading.) 
 As I said, apart from romantic, the book is funny, and it's also smart, and fresh (British slang and Manchester locations fuck yeah), but not completely original. It's good enough that--unlike so many rom-coms, where inconsistencies make you cringe--you get absorbed by the plot, but not enough for you not to see everything coming. (I did see everything coming: (view spoiler)[Graeme's cheating, Zoe's betrayal, Mindy & Ivor's relationship and Olivia being the married woman Simon was in love with (hide spoiler)]). 
 The novel comes with some articles by the author at the end. They had in me the effect of perceiving McFarlane as a bit more self-aware and satirical than I previously imagined from the novel. In particular, the article "This We Don't Need to See in Rom Coms Anymore" which, apart from being hilarious, shows the author intent on regards of her book--Which is neat, or it'd be if she had accomplished it. She's trying but not completely succeeding, i.e.: there are non-romantic subplots on the present day storyline (yay) which are dropped when stop serving a purpose (nay); the novel tries to reveal that there's no correct way to have a romantic relationship (yay), but McFarlane exemplifies that by making an stereotype of every couple from the book--which could work, if the narrator herself would not observe exactly that in a "end of story wrap-up" (nay). 
 So, all in all, the book was fun, a quick read, and incredibly lovely, but it not departed from the Hollwyood stereotype as much as it would have liked. And, though that could be only me, I would have liked the ending to be a little more epic, ahem. I have to say though that the story from the past and its culminating end were the greatest thing and I squealed like a seal. Also, I loved reading about Manchester so much--I want a flat at the Northern Quarter Ughhh. 
 I'm leaving you here the closing paragraph of the article because it's hysterical and I totally agree with it: 
 However, in terms of muddled redemption, nothing beats batshit reactionary fable Pretty Woman, in which Richard Gere's prostitute-boffing asset stripper reaches the denouement of a spiritual journey where he...builds big warships. 
 HOW IS THERE ROOM IN YOUR BODY FOR THAT HUGE HEART. 
 It's possible Pretty Woman was conceived originally not as a romance, but a portrait of what a Bond villain does in his downtime. Think about it: Edward lives in a hotel penthouse, has his own plane, likes the opera, polo and hot tubbing with call girls. 
 The man's a nine iron, a can of Halfords metallic paint and a pair of plus fours away from Goldfinger. 
 *I'm being mean though, because if 5 stars is Attachments this is 3 stars, but if 2 stars is Queen of Babble this one should be 4 stars.