Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

An average movie

Posted : 10 years, 7 months ago on 24 September 2013 10:08

A few months back, I saw ‘No Strings Attached’ and I thought it was terribly underwhelming so I wasn’t expecting much from another recent romantic-comedy with a very similar plot. Surprisingly, it turned out to be much better and I actually enjoyed most of it. The first improvement was that instead of Ashton Kutcher, you had here Justin Timberlake who was not just another pretty face, but was actually pretty funny and, above all, he managed to give his character some interesting layers. I wouldn’t try to compare Mila Kunis with Natalie Portman (who did her best with the terrible ‘No Strings Attached’) but Kunis was pretty good too and, together, they definitely had some nice chemistry. So, the whole thing was not bad at all and it didn’t need much to completely convince me. Still, even though the makers tried to make you believe that they were poking fun at the genre, it was actually pretty fake, as the whole thing remained terribly safe and completely within the boundaries of the genre. They even threw in some poorly developed sub-plot about Alzheimer in the mix (if I recall correctly, the poor Richard Jenkins who deserves much better played a very similar role in ‘Dear John’). Still, even though it was not really amazing, it is and remains a pretty decent romantic-comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Friends with Benefits review

Posted : 12 years, 5 months ago on 22 November 2011 03:39

A romantic comedy where Justin Timber lake and Mila Kunis vowed to be intimate friends without emotions, sounds bit weird but it all begins like that and guess what it ends up with friends with feelings for one another.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Easily better than No Strings Attached

Posted : 12 years, 5 months ago on 12 November 2011 10:22

"No emotions. Just sex."


If Friends with Benefits sounds somewhat familiar, that's because it's pretty much the exact same movie as 2011's No Strings Attached. Both are R-rated studio comedies with a pair of bankable lead performers, and both are rom-coms concerning the concept of "fuck buddy" relationships. But Friends with Benefits is the superior movie; it's brighter, funnier and more likeable than the earlier picture, and it stars two appealing lead actors who actually feel like best friends. Effervescently directed by Will Gluck, this is a surprisingly decent romantic comedy which is both entertaining and funny. Girls will enjoy the central romance of the picture, while guys will enjoy the presence of Mila Kunis and all of the sexual humour. In other words, it's a rare type of date movie that's not agonising for either gender.



Emotionally damaged following a harsh break-up, Los Angeles-native magazine art director Dylan (Timberlake) accepts a new position for a job in New York City. Faced with no friends in a strange city, Dylan begins spending time with Jamie (Kunis), the chirpy corporate head-hunter who recruited him. Also coming off a bad break-up, Jamie clicks wonderfully with Dylan, and they become fast friends. On a whim, the two soon begin a purely sexual relationship. Of course, the meaningless bedroom fun works for the pair until emotions and feelings start to enter the equation.


One of the greatest successes of Friends with Benefits is the dialogue. Rather than typical vanilla rom-com dialogue, the script is full of witty banter. In particular, the repartee between Dylan and Jamie is well-written, often funny, and engaging. Also refreshing about the film is the way that the characters mock typical rom-com clichés - at one stage, Dylan and Jamie view a fictional romantic comedy (starring Jason Segal and Rashida Jones) that's filled with every last trite genre staple, and the characters openly dissect the predictable nature of rom-coms while watching it. Of course, though, Friends with Benefits is guilty of succumbing to rom-com clichés in both its filmmaking (montages and upbeat pop songs) and structure (in fact the broad strokes are identical to No Strings Attached). While boldness is pretty much forbidden in studio-produced romantic comedies like this, it's nevertheless a shame that the writers didn't shake up the formula or attempt to do something audacious. A bit of daring writing would have been especially refreshing since the uncannily similar No Strings Attached was released just a few months prior.



Admittedly, romantic comedies are always clichéd to some degree, so what matters is the execution. In this respect, Friends with Benefits scores a passing grade. Armed with a directorial zing that one wouldn't expect from the director of 2009's woeful Fired Up, the film is for the most part fast-paced and disarmingly enjoyable, with a soundtrack of catchy songs developing a playful tone. However, some of the editing is a bit choppy and jarring, and the bubbly pacing does momentarily erode once the film hits its second half and the proverbial serious moments begin to kick in. In particular, there are scenes involving Dylan's Alzheimer's-suffering father (Jenkins) that feel awkward in such a light-hearted mainstream romantic comedy. Not to mention, the characters face these types of dramas while a conventional break-up-to-make-up scenario lies in the story's peripheries. This stuff is present to build a sense of maturity, sure, but they aren't handled with enough skill for them to emerge as anything but minor distractions that were thrown in because the formula demanded it.


Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake are a terrific on-screen couple, with their immense chemistry allowing you to genuinely believe that they're best friends. However, Timberlake's performance is not as strong as Kunis', and his limitations as an actor do arise from time to time (which is odd considering Timberlake's terrific efforts in The Social Network). Kunis, on the other hand, truly shines with a vivacious performance. Fortunately, the supporting cast is extraordinarily good. Woody Harrelson (Zombieland) is an utter scene-stealer as Tommy, and he scores several good laughs. Unfailing character actor Richard Jenkins (Dear John) is also terrific as Dylan's father, while Jenna Elfman and Nolan Gould are both likeably down-to-earth as Dylan's sister and nephew (respectively). Meanwhile, recognisable comedic performers Emma Stone (Easy A) and Andy Samberg (I Love You, Man) show up in mere cameo roles at the beginning, playing the exes of Dylan and Jamie (respectively).



Likable as hell and benefitting from a handful of really funny moments, Friends with Benefits is for the most part a romantic comedy done right. If you can overlook the predictable nature and a few draggy moments, there's a great deal of entertainment to be unearthed here. And make sure you stay until the end of the credits for one last satirical jab at rom-coms.

7.0/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Better than most modern day rom-coms.

Posted : 12 years, 8 months ago on 30 August 2011 10:55

Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis stand side by side in this romantic comedy, directed by Will Gluck. Friends with Benefits was released nearly the same time as No Strings Attached, which was based around the exact same premise. Two close friends attempting to make their relationship strictly sexual without any strings attached. No coupling, or anything boyfriend/girlfriend related. Hollywood continues to dish out piles of doo-doo left and right, with not even a hint of originality. It seems every year at least a few lazy rom-coms are released, it's become a tradition in Hollywood, and looks as if it won't come to an end anytime soon.

"Benefits" suffers from that same disease, but somehow Kunis and Timberlake manage to light up the screen enough with their enjoyable chemistry, that it results in an above-average flick. "No Strings Attached" was released this year as well, based on the exact same premise as this one. Unfortunately, "Benefits" is just a notch worse than it's counterpart. The Kunis/Timberlake duo seems more down-to-earth than a lot of other rom-com couples as of late, something a lot of modern day movies lack. I'm growing somewhat of a liking for Timberlake, he's been taking on some reasonable roles in the past few years, and I enjoyed every one of them. He has definitely matured as an actor, going from a 90's pop-star sensation, to a much more developed and devoted big screen performer. I can see him involved in some large films in the future. He still has some work to do, though. Kunis I've always had a celebrity crush on. She's down-right beautiful, and can act very well. Her recent film Black Swan hit it big at both the office, and the Oscars, as she was nominated for best supporting actress.

While this flick lacks really any substance whatsoever, and the material is lazier than a pot-head on a couch, it makes up for with a great spark from the leads, who throw some witty dialogue back and forth, and honestly make a very cute couple. It works with it's low standard plot devices, and manages to put together an enjoyable enough romantic comedy for the summer vacation students to enjoy.

Fair warning though: it's nearly a 100 minute cliche. However, in terms of a by the books comedy, "Friends with Benefits" succeeds, barely.

6.3/10


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Friends with Benefits review

Posted : 12 years, 9 months ago on 26 July 2011 12:11

I liked the movie but the plot was predictable. It was funny and had moments were it was funny. It was sexy and cute at the same time. Justin Timberlake is a pretty good actor and that was a pleasant surprise. Mila Kunis is a sexy lady and it showed in this movie. The one thing that made the movie a mirror of many peoples lives. It was an overall good movie.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Friends with Benefits

Posted : 12 years, 9 months ago on 22 July 2011 05:09

During the first few minutes of Friends with Benefits, something wildly unrealistic happens: a character played by Andy Samberg breaks up with a character played by Mila Kunis, and she stands there outraged and frustrated, rather than just turning around and walking towards the sea of guys who'd fall to their knees if she gave any of them the time of day. In case you're wondering why I find this unrealistic, I suggest you take a second look at a picture of Samberg and Kunis, and then get back to me. The good news is, though, that the lack of realism pretty much ends in that initial scene. While the final act of Friends with Benefits is tainted by two or three inevitable Hollywood cliches, the film offers a genuine, refreshingly funny and zany exploration of a guy and a girl who decide to have a strictly physical, romance-free relationship.

Considering that there has been a sudden barrage of movies about this exact same subject, the film's freshness deserves special commendation. At the end of last year, we got the surprisingly good Love and Other Drugs (which I liked so much that I couldn't resist including as an honorary mention for 2010), and then once the new year began, we got No Strings Attached, which lied to us, by basically claiming that it was a film about "friends with benefits," yet all it really has is a montage during the first act that featured quick, clean snippets of the two leads having sex, and once that was over, it all descended into standard romcom material. Thankfully, the same doesn't happen with Friends with Benefits. Sure, it eventually descends into similar territory, but at least it uses the MAJORITY of its running time (rather than just 10 minutes) to explore the pros and cons of having a sex-only relationship. What makes the film even better is that instead of having sanitized montages like the one in No Strings Attached, it's actually interested in some of the funny/awkward things that anyone who's had sex is aware of, even if most romantic comedies are afraid to show them. The two characters warn each other about the body parts where they're ticklish and the like, and there's an uproarious scene that captures the all-too-true complications of needing to pause the sex in order to pee and then realizing that it's kind of difficult to pee with a hard-on. Some may consider these things crass, while I think of them as a breath of fresh air, because of their authenticity.

Dylan (Justin Timberlake) lives in Los Angeles and works as the art director for a very successful blog, which has had millions of views over the last month. But after his girlfriend dumps him, it seems like maybe he wants to try something new and get a fresh start elsewhere (even though he claims he doesn't really need it), so he goes to New York for a job interview for a position as editor of GQ Magazine. Jamie (Mila Kunis) is the recruiter in charge of Dylan, so she goes to get him at the airport to take him to the interview. Quickly after Dylan gets out of the interview, he's offered the job. Great - but now it's nighttime, and Dylan doesn't know anyone else in New York. Jamie offers to take him out to walk around and get a drink. Before you start rolling your eyes, I should tell you that the scenes that follow aren't those typical cute/romantic "walking next to the river" scenes in which the two leads magically fall in love in two minutes. The scenes feel exactly like what it would be like if someone you recently met in a city is taking you out to have some fun for the night. Once Dylan has settled into the new job, he starts becoming friendlier with Jamie, and they talk about how they wish they could just be with someone without all the emotional baggage. And that's how the titular relationship gets started.

In the midst of the inevitable clumsiness involved in Dylan and Jamie's attempts at keeping it all physical, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments. Two of the technology-related ones (one involves an iPad that actually has a bible in it, while the other involves an iPhone application that can tell when a woman is on her period) had me in stitches. Patricia Clarkson makes a delightful appearance as Jamie's sex-crazed mother, and the running joke involving the mysterious ethnicity of Jamie's father hits the right note every time it's delivered. And credit has to go to Timberlake for having no problem poking fun at his singing days in plenty a scene during the film. There's an effervescence to the scenes between Dylan and Jamie that works well particularly because it isn't dragged down by those initial overly-cute moments that we see in the first half of most romantic comedies. Those moments are substituted here by frank conversations about sex/relationships and by some occasionally hilarious gags. One of the plot-related reliefs that we get here is that, because Dylan is a newcomer to New York, he doesn't really know anyone or have any friends there, which means that we don't have to be exposed to the cliche we often get in romantic comedies in which the guy has two or three buddies who are used for purposes of inserting slapstick humor into the proceedings.

There are times at which Friends with Benefits tries to set itself up as an anti-romantic comedy. Comedic actors Jason Segel and Rashida Jones have a particularly funny cameo, playing the stars of the romantic film that Dylan and Jamie watch and make fun of. The scenes are over-the-top and rife with all the predictable lines of romcoms, and it's obvious that Segel and Jones had a riot of a time filming them. My problem is that the film uses this as a means of criticism, but then does some of the same things in the final act: is it because the film simply relents and decides that it should still end as all romantic comedies do in order to satisfy the mainstream, or is it some deeper form of criticism? When the movie that Dylan and Jamie are watching ends and the credits start rolling, the song "Hey Soul Sister" by Train starts playing, and Dylan wisely and wittily remarks on how silly it is that these movies end with a song that has nothing to do with the movie, in order to "make people feel like they had a good time." But curiously enough, the same tune plays over the end of Friends with Benefits. Is it meant to be ironic, or do they actually think that they NEED to make the audience feel like they had a good time?

If it's the latter, it may have something to do with the fact that, as you'll predict, the film's second half does devolve into standard territory in which true feelings start to spark and things seem to start leading up to a final scene in which the two lovebirds will embrace and all will be right with the world. The reason why Friends with Benefits still deserves a passing grade is that, by this point, it has still at least done a good job of creating sizzling chemistry between Dylan and Jamie, and we've also had plenty of laughs in the process. What I definitely don't understand, though, is the insistence of romantic comedies on always having the male lead's father be a source of trouble that inevitably leads to a redemptive moment that somehow serves as the engine for the "Go get her" moment. As much as I appreciate Richard Jenkins' presence in the cast (and his performance is predictably great), this aspect feels a little bit too familiar.

Kunis and Timberlake are terrific. What I like about Kunis is that she plays sassy characters who actually have interesting things to say - she doesn't coast on attractiveness alone to carry herself through films, as so many other actresses who look like her do. Timberlake is often extremely funny, and obviously not ashamed of poking fun at himself, though he's had more chances than Kunis to display his acting prowess in other, better films (see Alpha Dog and The Social Network). The film works more often than it doesn't, thanks to their chemistry and to some solid humorous moments. Like I said back when I reviewed No Strings Attached, what I'm more interested in seeing is a more serious film that explores the toils and troubles of what it means to really try to go through with a sex-only friendship. But Friends with Benefits deserves much credit for milking the funny awkwardness of the titular situation as well as it does, despite the fact that, during the final act, it devolves into the same type of material that it had earlier criticized.


0 comments, Reply to this entry