| Page 1 of 17: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Index | 166 reviews in total |
98 out of 133 people found the following review useful:
A Cliché Romantic Comedy that Pokes Fun at Other Romantic Comedies, 30 June 2011
![]()
Author:
Phil from United States
I was able to see a sneak screening of this movie almost 1 month prior
to it's official release. I honestly walked in simply thinking I was
seeing another typical romantic comedy with my girlfriend. To my
surprise it was much more.
Timberlake plays an LA Blog Art Director who has just been recruited to
work for GQ in New York by Kunis who is a headhunter. The two had great
chemistry through out the movie.
What's funny is that even though it does contain the usual Cliché
scenes that most romantic adult comedies contain, it does tend to poke
fun at them and have some sort of realism to the plot.
Both Timberlake and Kunis are likable and really funny. Woody Harrelson
was the best addition to support this younger cast. Harrelson plays a
flamboyantly gay sports editor who goes from making sexual advances to
JT, to offering him some pearls of wisdom with his love life.
I would have to say this movie was very enjoyable and if your skeptical
about seeing it in the theaters, definitely put it on your "must rent"
list.
70 out of 97 people found the following review useful:
Good chemistry for sure, 26 July 2011
![]()
Author:
itchywow from Trinidad and Tobago
I was expecting to have to compare this movie with No Strings Attached
(or whatever that movie with Ashton Kutcher was) all the way through
however I was pleasantly surprised that the story was a bit more
complex despite the obvious parallels.
Yes it's the typical "boy and girl decide to be friends only but end up
loving each other" movie .... but I must admit that it was a lot
smarter in the delivery. Timberlake and Kunis have a lot of chemistry
on camera ... It's shot primarily in new york so expect the clichéd new
york locations ...
The complexity of Timberlake's character is slowly revealed through the
show as opposed to being revealed in the first 3 minutes like most
other movies.
A good watch ... not slap your knee funny but certainly entertaining to
the end ... clichés and all
52 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
A sweet satire that's almost good (but not quite), 22 July 2011
![]()
Author:
samkay1 from Canada
What I can say for Friends with Benefits is that it's a cute movie that
doesn't reach it's full potential. The main problem to me is that when
it starts, the film is being played as satire and when it ends, it's
being played straight. As a result, Friends with Benefits does not
quite rise above the romantic material it mocks, but on occasion it's
funny and adorable.
Actually for a while, the movie is on fire. The opening is cleverly
handled, and is a good way to grab the audiences attention. Then for
the next several scenes, Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake demonstrate
charm, comfort and overall competence and end up delivering a couple of
the funniest sexual encounters I've seen in years. What I like about
them both is that they bring enthusiasm to whatever they do, and this
film is no exception.
Around the halfway point, the film starts to feel a little boring. with
a running time of just over a hundred minutes, Friends with Benefits is
not a long movie, and while it's not exactly short either, it feels
shorter than it should be. There are a few hints to suggest that a
longer movie was intended but the Studio may have forced a cut down. In
addition to an ending that feels rushed, all the supporting characters
in the story seem futile, and underwritten. Woody Harrelsson, for
example, can be a really funny guy, but he's not given the material or
the screen time, to make his appearance worthwhile.
The film has it's ups, it has it's downs. It doesn't end up being a bad
Rom-com, but I've seen better.
58 out of 96 people found the following review useful:
A raunchy sex comedy that starts off sweet but becomes sour all too quickly, 5 July 2011
![]()
Author:
DonFishies from Canada
I was unsure what to expect going into Friends with Benefits at an
advanced screening a few weeks ago. It always seemed a bit too close in
plot to No Strings Attached (made extra odd as the female leads Mila
Kunis and Natalie Portman had literally just starred together in Black
Swan), a film that came out less than six months ago, and while the
trailers looked amusing, they seemed to look a little too close to an
atypical romantic comedy. But the film actually ended up surprising me.
Well, the first half at least.
Jamie (Kunis) is a headhunter in New York City who helps aspiring
graphic design artist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) land a prestigious job
at GQ. They become good friends, and after a discussion about their
relationship failures, decide to start having sex without the
relationship schmaltz (hence the titular phrase). But the good times
cannot stay uncomplicated for long.
Rather surprisingly, the first half of Friends with Benefits is a
ridiculously raunchy sex comedy that is sweeter than it is crude. The
dialogue and one-liners drop at a steady pace, and there is plenty of
laugh out loud moments. I was genuinely surprised at just how much I
was enjoying the film, and how well co-writer/director Will Gluck (who
knocked Easy A out of the park last year) helped capture the tropes and
stereotypes of romantic comedies, and went entirely against them. The
scene that starts the initial sexual antics is a complete dissection of
the genre, and seeing the film twist and turn around the familiar plot
devices was wonderful to see. It made the film feel hilarious, but also
made it feel like it was attempting to do something different at the
same time. Adding in a couple of random cameos from notable actors was
a bit wacky (which the trailers have ruined slightly), but helped add
to the humour.
Except the film comes to a screeching halt just about halfway in when
Jamie and Dylan come to the all too obvious realization that they may
want something more. The film then becomes drastically more dramatic, a
lot less sweet, and significantly more ordinary. Even the laughs
suffer, landing less with a snicker and more with a groan. Everything
it does to shift itself away from the romantic comedy genre feels
wasted because it falls into all of the stereotypes quicker than it
poked fun at them. It almost feels like they wanted to desperately feel
different, and then decided to just go the safer route as opposed to
sticking with its offbeat early tactics. I was really enjoying the film
significantly more than I imagined, but suddenly felt bored and totally
thrown off by the drastic tonal shift.
While sketch comedy has proved to be one of his strong suits,
Timberlake seems to have a lot of trouble carrying the film. We know he
has the chops to command the screen and be absolutely magnetic (we have
David Fincher and The Social Network to thank for that), but here he
seems to be struggling with every other scene. He lands most of his
jokes well, does decently with the dramatic bits and has plenty of
chemistry with Kunis, but he lacks the spark I think most people will
expect him to have in this role. He comes off as just okay, and more
amateur than anything else. He would have been better suited in the
film as a key supporting player, as opposed to the lead.
Kunis on the other hand, is significantly stronger and proves that her
turn in Forgetting Sarah Marshall may have been an early suggestion of
the formidable comedic talent she may quickly become. Gluck is not able
to achieve the same level of breakthrough that he got from Emma Stone
in Easy A from Kunis, but she manages to carry the film almost single
handedly. Even at the script's weakest moments, she grins and pushes
forward, never once appearing to be struggling as much as Timberlake
does. I think my only complaint against her is that she spends a good
portion of the film completely nude, yet ends up wearing all too
obvious pasties under a white shirt in one scene. It seems more like a
complaint against a horrendously bad editing and lighting decision than
against her, but it was a scene that made her seemingly-realistic
character feel a whole lot less believable.
Patricia Clarkson and Richard Jenkins both deliver good performances,
but sadly feel like they are just plagiarizing from characters they
have played better in the past. Jenna Elfman (who I did not realize was
still acting) does a little better in a warm and significantly low-key
role as Dylan's sister Annie. But it is Woody Harrelson who steals the
entire show as gay sports writer Tommy. He plays the character
ridiculously over-the-top, but never feels like he is encroaching on
any stereotypes. He makes it his own, and is almost too good in the
role. He gets all of the film's best dialogue quips, and runs circles
around everyone on screen. In more than one instance, Timberlake looks
legitimately shocked at some of the things Harrelson says and gets away
with. I think the film could have only benefited from including more of
him.
In the end, Friends with Benefits is both surprisingly well done and
unsurprisingly ordinary. It tries so hard initially to be the anti-
romantic comedy, and then just ends up falling into the same
predictable elements that every other film in the genre has already
done countless times before. The film is genuinely hilarious when it
wants to be however, and this does save it from being a total waste.
But it could have been so much more.
7/10.
23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Better Than Expected, But Nothing New, 6 December 2011
![]()
Author:
Film Watchin Fool from United States
Watch this if...you are in the mood for an adult-oriented romantic
comedy that has a great pace and manages to appeal to both genders.
Acting/Casting: 6.5* - Timberlake and Kunis are very good in the lead
roles and the supporting cast is well put together. Honestly,
Timberlake surprised me a bit with his performance.
Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 6* - There is a lot of great
scenery of LA and New York in the film. The movie also has a great
pace, which can be attributed to the directing.
Plot/Characters: 6* - Nothing new in the storyline with this movie, but
it is done fairly well. Guy and girl are friends and decide to have no
strings attached sex, but of course that is hard to do.
Entertainment Value: 7* - As mentioned, this movie is appealing to both
genders and is fast paced and entertaining. I would recommend to anyone
looking for a good romantic comedy that would interest both members in
the relationship.
My Score: 6.5+6+6+7 = 25.5/4 = 6.4
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
"Friends with Benefits", 7 April 2012
![]()
Author:
jonathanruano from Canada
"Friends with Benefits" has a predictable and unoriginal rom-com storyline and its ending is pretty lame. Yet this movie coasts on the charisma of Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis and a lot of sharp and witty dialogue. As long as these two actors are talking to each other or having sex, there is hardly ever a dull moment. And the reason for this seems to be simple enough. In most rom-coms, the actors play pretty dim-witted, boring and superficial people and therefore there is no reason to take interest in anything they may say or do. In this rom-com, "Friends with Benefits," Timberlake and Kunis play fresh, independent and smart people and for this reason we are interested in the lives they lead and what they say to each other. So "Friends with Benefits" does not have much of a plot, but that does seem to matter because on this rare occasion we are happily distracted by the magnetism of two capable on screen actors who are playing two well-craft parts.
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Cliché, predictable, but so honest and funny!, 22 November 2011
![]()
Author:
liso1966 from United States
This movie was all things cliché and predictable. Even though you know
what is coming, the honesty with life's little quirks and human
behavior was incredibly well done.
Timberlake is an okay actor. I found him to be a fresh breath in this
movie. The dialogue and scenario fit his charm quite well.
I found Mila Kunis to be quite funny, and she pulled off that cute,
charming, awkwardly damaged woman, perfectly. She was chic, yet easy to
relate too. Down to earth, but an air of success and confidence, hidden
in all the girly dreams and fairy-tales.
If you want something original and never done before, this is the wrong
movie to watch. If you wish to appreciate a good spin on an old concept
with stellar humor and humanity, it is worth the watch..
36 out of 64 people found the following review useful:
What so special do you see in this movie?, 14 September 2011
![]()
Author:
Romtonkon from Sweden
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Before I've decided to watch this movie, I've read reviews which were
very positive. Honestly, I don't understand why so many people like it
so much. As for me, it's another mawkish, predictable romcom based on a
well-known formula. A complete copy of another shoddy romantic comedies
like No Strings Attached and Love & Other Drugs with dull jokes, dumb
plot, slobbery moments and lack of chemistry between two lead
characters.
Friends with Benefits is supposed to be a romantic comedy but I don't
find it funny or heartwarming. All funny moments were included in first
30 minutes, another 1,5 h. is an annoying mess. I think writers have
lack of imagination, in my opinion, it's the only reason why they
included Alzheimer disease, Bryan Greenberg's character and an idiotic
quarrel between lead characters (J. Timberlake & M. Kunis). It was so
painful to watch, so I barely watched to the end. I know, some poorly
made movies have its charm, but FwB has nothing but boredom.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Nothing New, 16 January 2012
![]()
Author:
Josh Anderson from Grand Junction, Colorado
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I don't know what I expected from this packaged pre-frabricated Hollywood blockbuster so why did I feel like I wasted my $1.29 at Redbox (actually twice that for accidentally keeping the movie 2 nights). From the beginning, the dialogue was so full of quips and witty banter that the characters were never believable. The plot is basically the writer living out a fantasy of "no strings attached" sex which is a joke in real life because it's not how humans are made. In the movie, instead of learning that "no love sex" is impossible, the characters just decide they really do like each other (I'm not even going dilute the word "love" by using it here). The movie then proceeds to predictably fall into the romantic comedy trap that it made fun of in the beginning. Beside many personal annoyances (like Hollywood producers & writers always making movies about or based in New York or L.A. because they are ignorant as to any kind of life outside of those cities), I am beyond sick of movies diluting the beauty of sex by pushing the boundaries and tiptoeing on the line of pornography. This movie offers nothing more than the eye candy of Mila Kunis. If I were you I would not waste a Redbox dollar on it.
15 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
A Nutshell Review: Friends with Benefits, 1 October 2011
Author:
DICK STEEL from Singapore
2011 will probably go down as the year Hollywood tells us having F*
buddies is OK and encouraged, with no less than three films this year
set around the premise of pure sex without strings or emotions
attached, with Love and Other Drugs and No Strings Attached setting the
precedence earlier with an incredibly good looking cast in all sorts of
undress - Anne Hathaway, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman and Ashton
Kutcher - and added to the list will be current IT guy and girl Justin
Timberlake and Mila Kunis rolling beneath the sheets in a typical love
story between the emotionally unavailable and the emotionally damaged.
Mila Kunis stars as Jamie, a headhunter in New York who persuades her
target Dylan played by Justin Timberlake to ditch his young, upstart
blogging team to join GQ (how's that for a little bit of subtle
advertising) in revamping its website and to infuse new content ideas.
A night out prior to the offer seals the LA based Dylan to relocate and
take up the offer, with plenty of activities thrown in that if it's not
Jamie being his only friend in a new, big city, they would serve as
activities that would fit in for an awesome date night out. Before long
they become firm friends, and made a pact to keep things physical since
they each have their wants, and with the other party game to get down
and dirty, so begins their game of tennis (though personally I prefer
analogy with, and the term "bedminton" - it involves cocks after all).
After all, why complicate what would be a beautiful friendship, if sex
can be treated just as sex without the emotions thrown in to mess
things up?
You know the clichéd drill by now, with things moving along fine and
dandy, the hint of emotions coming into play to really turn things
upside down, the narrative montage to show how frequent they mate like
jackrabbits, before some large, needy episode or statements uttered
that will probably reveal the true state of affairs, and the list goes
on. Deny all you want, but one cannot help but to agree that the fairer
sex will have things rough if pacts of this nature turn sour, and
expectedly in a movie they always do, otherwise everyone will be happy
without adversary, frustration and challenges to overcome and provide
that change in strength of character.
And it is this power of the cliché that absolutely calls the shots in
films like these. You know what will happen, but want to see them
happen anyway even though you're multiple steps ahead of every
character. And it is precisely these expectations that anyone would
want to see covered, and try as the filmmakers want it is the clichés
that they find hard to break away from, even if characters here
proclaim very early on that romance in their world shouldn't be like an
unbelievable Hollywood film, but in what would be art imitating art,
look who's talking to begin with. And what's with the fixation about
consistently taking the shine off the captain of US Airways Flight 1549
in its emergency landing onto the Hudson River?
Justin Timberlake is fast becoming the busy bona fide movie star since
The Social Network, and continues his run with this film and In Time
which will hit the screens here soon. He has that boyish charm that the
camera just loves, and being a real life singer meant covering a number
of songs here, from Stereophonics to Kris Kross made it look all too
easy. Mila Kunis plays her role as the emotionally damaged girl with
aplomb, and shares an effective chemistry with Timberlake that makes
this film a delight to sit through, even if as mentioned the story's
cliché and we know just about how these two nice looking people will
likely get together.
The supporting characters while one dimensional almost always threaten
to steal the show, from Patricia Clarkson as Jamie's sex crazed mom
extending the lifespan of a running joke involving the nationality of
Jamie's unseen dad, Woody Harrelson as the gay colleague of Dylan who
always have innuendos offhand to share, Jenna Elfman who plays Dylan's
sister and Richard Jenkins starring as Dylan's dad who's suffering from
advancing Alzheimer's disease, which is especially poignant as it deals
with the subplot of how a family copes with a loved one who's behaviour
develops erratically, and holding the key to a pivotal personal
experience to share and turn things around.
With Andy Samberg and Emma Stone making cameos (the latter being
extremely crazy as a fanatical John Meyer fan), Friends With Benefits
has its main leads to thank for in milking quite the cliché story for
the masses, who are likely to make a beeline just to see those two in
some down and dirty action, not that you get to see a lot to begin with
anyway. Recommended, and stay tuned until after the end credits roll
for more commentary when the two are sitting at a couch watching the
outtakes of a DVD movie.
| Page 1 of 17: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
| Awards | External reviews | Parents Guide |
| Official site | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |