IMDb > Friends with Benefits (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Friends with Benefits
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Friends with Benefits More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 198 reviews in total 

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Actors talk at people, not to them

Author: herbqedi from New York, NY
27 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the movie for the video generation - all flash mobs and photography. Some very good actors (Emma Stone, Patricia Clarkson, and Richard Jenkins) do their best with clichéd caricature actors (the shrewish ex-girlfriend, the lost-in-the-70's mom; and the father with Alzheimiers with a propensity for taking his pants off. Only Jenna Elfman as Timberlake's sister comes off as an actual human being. Woody Harrelson is horribly one-note as the obsessively gay sports Editor but it's okay because he's hip. This movie tries to be as hip as it can be by pretending to be a spoof on Hollywood Romantic comedies while actually making one. But, it's not really a romantic comedy at all despite the tacked-on cliché ending. It's really vulgar.

They talk at each other saying inappropriate things and never listening to each other. Both are gorgeous - I'll give them that. But, that's just about all. Their love-making sessions include some crude exchanges and interludes with Timberlake's slapstick routing about a male situation making it too hard to urinate normally chewing up about 4 minutes of film time. I've seen some reviews saying that the two leads had great chemistry. As far as I could tell the two were filmed separately, then spliced together. In a similarly themed movie, Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman had 100 times the chemistry these two did. Of course, Portman is a much more profound actress than the flippant Kunis (see Black Swan).

Okay, that's probably enough. I wasted nearly 2 hours of my life watching this so I need spend no more time on it now.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Just like No Strings Attached but slightly different and still horrible.

Author: hthbrr2 from United States
24 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Spoilers ahead!

So when I first heard of this movie I got REALLY confused. Because a movie JUST LIKE THIS was JUST released it was called No Strings Attached. Wow it's official: Hollywood HAS RUN OUT OF IDEAS! They are so shameless about it now even. They don't even try to space them apart anymore to try and trick people! Like the Hulk reboots. At least they had YEARS separation. And people found THAT outrageous! These movies came out back to back! Here let me list the similarities between these two movies:

Both have the same plot: a male and female agree to be "fu(& buddies"

Both end up the same way: the male and female end up wanting more

Both have an actress that was in Black Swan; NSA: Natalie Portman FwB: Mila Kunis

Both have the male lead that was more famous in the 90's; NSA: Ashton Kutcher (That 70's Show actor) FwB: Justin Timberlake (N*sync singer)

Both have outrageous, BETTER, more interesting supporting actors/characters; NSA: the girl with the glasses FwB: Justin's gay friend.

Both have these people be at the top of their game and rich! NSA: the girl is a doctor and the guy I forgot but he was pretty well off FwB: The girl has a cushy job, and the guy is getting money thrown at him!

This last similarity brings me to my next point; the movie was unrealistic. This movie is taking place in a post-recession world. There are flash mobs, new technology, references to current things. YET in this movie companies are BEGGING people to work for them!? WTF!? THERE ARE NO JOBS! This was the MOST INSULTING DISGUSTING THING about this piece of (r@p movie! They will hire some #0re to FLY to LA to CONVINCE a guy WITH HIS OWN company to work for them. Doesn't that mean that they have to pay him more? It's for GQ magazine sure, but a mag has THAT much money!? And for what!? This guy does not even do his job! Knows nothing as proved by his gay friends question's like "What font did you use?" This guys 'brilliant' response; "I don't know. Times new roman?" Most of the time he is fooling around with the girl and doing other random $#!t!!!! It disgusts me that Hollywood does not get it! Life is not a fairy tale! People don't and CAN'T live these lives. That apartment Justin's character can supposedly afford (IN NEW YORK NO LESS!) even the rich struggle to get! WOW!

The only difference between these movies is the person that wants their relationship to mean more. In NSA it's the guy that wants more and the girl that doesn't "get it." In FwB it's the girl that wants more and the guy does not "get it."

Also I hated how this movie tried to be so hipster. Like it was trying to be so "cool." As if they were "better than" these movies they were making fun of. At this point pretty much ANY other romantic comedy is better than this piece of crap! Even NSA had the girl with the glasses - so funny! While this movie's stand out character; the gay friend, was barely even in the movie! Also the ending was a cop out they did not admit that they were wrong! Cynical to the end! Wow what idiots, what a pointless movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Lame.... Useless waste of time.

Author: imbluzclooby from United States
9 July 2013

Watching movies about shallow premises coupled by lame dialogue and Narcissistic acting are enough to sour me early on. Why did I invest my time watching this pointless bilge. Apparently, the supposed "Most beautiful woman in the world', Mila Kunis is what kept me somewhat intrigued. close ups of her stunning face and dark beauty is what keeps me watching. Outside of the aesthetic quality of her appearance I had to constantly get up out of my couch to do something more useful like wash dishes or clip my fingernails.

This movie is lame and is just a feeble excuse to showcase the two leads and the materialistic world they live in. I don't know much about Justin Timberlake, because I never paid much attention to him outside of Hollywood tabloids forcing this drip into our living room. I also hate when they have to incorporate the obligatory Rap music into movies with White actors, as if they genuinely like this putrid form of noise.

It's annoying and makes young people look shallow, self-serving and apathetic.

If you want to look at Mila and her entrancing beauty, click on some thumbnails online. otherwise, save yourself 95 minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

this is not a romcom

Author: Aiki40 from Dublin, Ireland
8 November 2011

Is not.. and maybe is good. Justin Timberlake is like a piece of wood.. and wood express emotions very hardly. Is not.. because "sex is like tennis" so.. its predictable from begging to end. Is not comedy to.. I try very hard to find any funny moments.. was hopeless. OK.. its maybe any interesting story here?.. Which mean.. you can watch this movie and you don't know what happen next? Sorry.. no! Wooden hero meets beautiful girl, go to bed, split up, hero talk with Yoda, they meet again.. end of story. Familiar? To much familiar for me. A few weeks ago I saw "No Strings Attached".. there Natalie Portman can lift and rescue this movie.. (another wooden hero BTW - Ashton Kutsher). Big Mila Kunis eyes can't help here. Its a pity. so.. what you get? you can remember something when you get out from cinema? Not too much I think... nothing maybe.. You forgot this movie before you arrive home. My prediction for Golden Raspberries this year: - worst scenario - worst couple - worst male performer - worst director

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

H-A-T-E the "music"

Author: Michael L.S. from Israel
19 June 2012

Aight, the picture itself is not too bad. It's clichéd, shallow, crude, predictable. It's replete with impossibly talented non-entities cracking wise left and right. Both women and men, gay and straight, are portrayed as annoying jerks, without any old-school values or integrity. If the human race ever devolves to the specimens as depicted in this movie, I'm getting a one-way ticket off the planet.

All that, however, can be glossed over.

What REALLY got to me, and which got me to write this feedback is the supremely irritating muzak. I mean, literally EVERY SINGLE scene concludes with a score, and each and every score is basically some schmuck banging on a guitar and intoning nondescript, forgettable words. It's the kind of thing that passes for "profound" in a hippie commune with everyone stoned and half-comatose. I don't know what genre it officially is... - "indie," is it? I know the said "music" is meant to give pause for thought, reflection, to make us pensive... - but it's just imbecilic and bland. It totally lacks any character. Jeez Alou, you could literally replace all the so-called lyrics with "nya nya nya" in the style of someone who takes a break from drooling into a cup, and the effect would be identical.

Anyway, so the O.S.T. entirely ruined for me what would otherwise have been a 5/10 feature.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Sony placement movie

Author: rajan2420 from France
7 January 2012

OK, what you see from the beginning to end is a display of Sony products.

A deliberate and a ridiculous scene is placed just so that the characters could be seen playing the Sony playstation.

The couple watch a show on a.......Sony TV.

If they use a laptop it would be a VAIO .

And of course, the background music is composed of artists that come from the Sony records label.

The film ? Well the guys were so focused as to how the place the Sony products that they turned the movie into a total crap.

It is NOT a romantic comedy. It does not have any class. The characters debit dialogs straight from the gutter.

I used to have a high esteem of the Sony Group. This movie produced in me the opposite effect. I would buy any label except this.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Clueless commitmentphobes transformed in old fashioned morality tale masquerading as urban comedy

Author: Turfseer from United States
31 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Jamie is an executive recruiter who recruits Dylan, a young, up and coming art director for a small internet company in Los Angeles, to come to NYC and work for the much more high powered GQ Magazine. Before this happens, there's a prologue showing their back story: both are going through another unsuccessful relationship with a member of the opposite sex. When Jamie and Dylan meet each other for the first time, they're both jaded, as they've been burned one too many times, in their quest for 'true romance'.

While getting to know each other, they watch a parody of a romcom (romantic comedy) on TV, both bemoaning the pitfalls of traditional courtships and wondering perhaps how they can circumvent all the complications associated with traditional romance. They forge an unlikely friendship where they can avoid any kind of commitment in the relationship and simply enjoy sex for its own sake. Hence, the 'benefits' is the satisfaction of having the sexual relationship without the commitment.

Soon, the film's scenarists strategy of setting us up for an old fashioned morality tale, becomes clear. The 'friends with benefits' program--that is, sex without commitment, is only part and parcel of a larger overall problem with the personalities of our protagonists. Jamie and Dylan are unfortunately narcissistic, coarse and immature.

The film's scenarists would like us to laugh at Jamie and Dylan, as they expose their foibles in the first thirty minutes or so. Jamie, the perennial go-getter, obnoxiously puts down Dylan, who extols the virtues of wide-open, west coast living as opposed to what he regards as the cramped living style of New Yorkers (the put-down becomes clear when Jamie sarcastically cracks, "What are you, a Gazelle?).

If Jamie's coarseness is off-putting, it pales in comparison to Dylan's complete cluelessness. Dylan is so narcissistic that he simply can't understand why he's so wrong about Captain Sully. People rightly perceive that he's stubborn and ignorant when he claims 'planes fly themselves'. In reality, Captain Sully's plane was almost completely disabled due to the bird strike and could not possibly fly itself. So he's wrong on that count and 'tunes out' all those who are justifiably angry with him.

Dylan's myopic 'Sully stance' is indicative of what's wrong with the first third of the film. By trying to 'humanize' the characters, exposing them as deeply flawed human beings, the film's scenarists have gone too far and made them out to be decidedly unlikeable. Somehow the Sully joke needed to be lighter and not cast Dylan in such a negative light. That way, we would care more about him at the end, when he finally does redeem himself. The same goes for Jamie whose constant use of expletives coupled with her overreaching competitiveness, also casts her in a negative light, during the expository sequences.

The failed comedy of exposing the two 'losers' who adopt the self-defeating 'friends with benefits' program becomes a much more traditional romance in Act II and III, not unlike the 'film within a film' parody of the romcom the two lovers watch and disparage early on. It doesn't take long for Jamie to have true feelings for Dylan, after he invites her to California to meet his family and they have an intimate tryst. But Dylan remains locked in his fear of commitment and after Jamie overhears him putting her down while talking with his sister, the third act crisis is precipitated.

It takes a little while longer before Dylan redeems himself by realizing how selfish he's been, but with the aid of two key allies, he finally sees the light. The allies who counsel Dylan are of course, Tommy, his gay co-worker, delightfully played by Woody Harrelson and Dylan's Alzheimer's afflicted father, Mr. Harper (solidly and convincingly played by Richard Jenkins).

Couldn't you guess, but despite Mr. Harper's fluctuating memory loss, he manages to impart to his son, a tale of long lost love which turns out to be the big lesson here: don't let your best shot at love slip away.

It's all very predictable and sentimental but Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis do seem to exude some chemistry, working together. I only wish their characters were a little less alienating and a little more gregarious in the first thirty to forty minutes.

In the end, 'Benefits' can only live up to its billing for its romance and not its comedy. Simply put, there's nothing funny about obnoxious, clueless people. But once these protagonists are transformed, they do become a bit more likable. Still, is this rather predictable 'love-fest', a film you'll remember for a long time? I doubt it quite a bit.

As an old fashioned morality tale, where a misguided couple realizes the error of their ways and finds 'true love' in the process, 'Benefits' fits in well with the pantheon of mediocre romcoms, populating our movie theaters today.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

No benefit to watching it

Author: Kristine ( from Chicago, Illinois
10 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you had read my comments you know my hatred for most romantic comedies, as they are the same formula over and over again with different names and actors. 2011 had a movie staring hot on the rise Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. An intelligent romantic comedy about the realism on relationships, how sometimes there is no way to get around having feelings for someone in our busy world. We want that connection with someone and sometimes let it go before we realize that we may have lost someone special. So almost in taking her role too seriously, Mila Kunis who starred with Natalie Portman in Black Swan playing a girl who is almost a little jealous of the lead's talent, takes on the same like role. Playing the girl a small bit different by being someone who does believe in love but thinks that it's something wrong with her on why she can't find the right guy for her. Can Justin Timberlake prove her wrong? What could have been a very creative formula in making fun of how romantic comedies have taken over most women's perceptions of what love should be instead of what's reality, it turns back into the same tired old formula it's bashing in the first place.

Jamie has the task of trying to recruit Dylan to interview for a job with GQ magazine, he comes to New York and after interviewing for the position learns from Jamie that he has been given an offer to work for GQ. Not knowing anyone else in the city he and Jamie quickly develop a friendship. One night, while hanging out at Jamie's apartment watching a romantic comedy, they get on the topic of sex and relationships. They come to the conclusion that sex should not come with so many emotional attachments. Both feeling the need for a physical connection they agree to have sex without emotion or commitment involved. After several trysts together Jamie comes to the realization that this isn't really what she wants, and she would like to start dating again and informs Dylan that they need to stop. But after many failed attempts on both parts they are both in a supposed shock when they realize they really like each other.

You name it, the cliché is there: the gay best friend, the misunderstanding, the workaholics, the walking down the street to some cheesy sappy pop song looking into the sky wondering how a love could go so wrong, the talking to an old person making the protagonist realize how they were wrong and must do something so dramatic to win the person back and of course the big make up kiss in front of a big crowd of people who feel the need to applause despite the fact that they don't know what is going on. Despite a lot of flaws the thing I do give credit too is that Mila and Justin do have some great chemistry bouncing back and forth off each other. Although they are such beautiful people and it's hard to believe that they are that hard up for some loving. Would I say this is a terrible romantic comedy? Not necessarily, I didn't feel my time was totally wasted, but I would recommend No Strings Attached over this as that was more realistic and had a better feel to it. But I think this was over all a good way to waste some time if you're looking for light hearted fun as the two leading actors make it worth your while. It's just a tired old formula that I wish could have a different ending for once. But that isn't coming any time soon as Hollywood needs to stick with the safe formula of having everyone live happily ever after and nothing more after that.


Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

meh :/

Author: Olaf Weyer ( from Germany
11 February 2013

15 minutes into this movie and i have no idea who these two main characters are. I assume i am supposed to take the dialogue lines of each's partner breaking up with them at face value, giving us some insight into our main characters inner problems, but i can't. It just all to superficial and neither of the "divorced" shows any emotional reaction. So nothing to identify here. Neither with our characters profession: Two real super successful hotshots in NY (now) which simply ain't close enough at home for a mass audience. Should we admire this Denver-Clanesque setup? But the biggesst flaw, really isn't the story or unlikeable characters, the real caveat is the pacing. There is simply is none. This movie moves along in a manner, like it were telling you "what do i care, if you're watching"? On the bottomline: Not all engaging, not funny, not interesting, not fresh, not making your heart raise or slow down, just an empty shell of nothingness, that happened to got (almost) written and film through some camera. Stay away. It sucks!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:


Author: thetruth45 from United States
28 January 2012

This movie was absolutely horrendous. There was not a single positive aspect to this movie. First of all, it's not funny. Second of all, the acting is lousy. I understand that this is a romantic comedy and it's supposed to be a bit light and not so deep...but this was really bad. I mean, there really wasn't a single truthful moment in this movie from an acting perspective. I've seen children have more substance that Justin Timberlake and his female counterpart. Third of all, this movie was really awkward- like neither of these individuals have had sex in their life..... Fourth, the plot/story is literally non-existent--> we are literally forced to watch the first hour of the movie in this sort of trance-like mirage of weird images of Justin trying to be funny in bed with this chick....but all the audience could do is cringe in utter embarrassment at this fiasco.

Fifth, they kept trying to get Justin Timberlake naked--> but is he supposed to have a great body or something? I mean he looks like a highschool kid...what woman is salivating for the body of a highschooler? They should have been doing everything possible to keep his clothes on and not off. The list of flaws could go on for infinite....this movie blows. I give it an F.

The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 is Woody Harrelson who's awesome as usual. I.e. he's the only positive to the entire movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history