|Page 3 of 21:||            |
|Index||201 reviews in total|
Friends with Benefits seems like it might be a satire of Nora Ehpron's
feel good films,or Neil Simon's one dimensional types with just TV
cracks as substitutes for any kind of genuine dialogue. Not the case
here. This film makes Ephron's screenplays and directed films, along
with N. Simon's stuff, look like classics. Friends with Benefits has no
acting in it, except for Patricia Clarkson, and she is debased as one
of those old women- mothers who swear and screw around with men etc.
There isn't one line that is funny,there is not a scene between Timberlake and Kunis that has any chemistry to it. He is always seen as potentially gay, and Woody Harrelson's gay character keeps us wondering, if anyone would care to wonder.
Timberlake plays it all as sort of gay and sort of straight, but comes up neuter. I think the reason why there are so many nude shots of him is because you never take his gender seriously, like one of the dwarfs in Snow White, you never fear for Snow White's sexual safety; the dwarfs have nothing that would cause fear. So it is with Timberlake. Even when there is sex between Kunis and Timberlake, it looks like wrestling at summer camp.
The Altzheimer scenes are appalling, along with the gay male model scenes that are deeply homophobic.
This film needed a script, director, producer, and stars, not non-actors, who stomp around the set with no sense of mimesis, mimicking at all.
Avoid this, and watch "The Nanny."
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Cheesy forced dialogue.A ridiculous screenplay. Did we really have to
have the usual "Mom caught us having sex" scene. How bogus can you get?
Timberlake can not act. Sorry. He's too much a newbie to have tried to
carry this. I found the so called sex scenes to be trite and routine
and mostly unfunny.
There must be a director's play book out there for doing sex scenes. It's all predictable. She's on top. Then he's on top. Then he's bobbing ridiculously around under the sheets. Then he has to pee. Gotta get in those butt shots, right? Had don't forget those breasts, but be sure and keep one leg up. At least she demanded a butt double.
A snore. Yawn...............................
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Friends With Benefits (2011): Dir: Will Gluck / Cast: Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis, Woody Harrelson, Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman: Xerox piece of sh*t about crossing friendship and sex. We have seen this bullshit situation a million times. In fact, No Strings Attached was released earlier in the year and seems like the same stupid plot. Leaving all details aside, it breaks down like this. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis meet after they have broken up in other relationships. Now they decide to avoid feelings and have lots of sex. What is so pathetic about this is how it jerks viewers around. We know where this is headed. Timberlake and Kunis have sex and pretend that they don't care for each other then tension interrupts their friendship. Then they avoid each other before that overly bullshit contrived ending that works like a punch to the groin. The supporting roles are even more over the top. Woody Harrelson plays a co-worker of Timberlake's and he is openly gay to the point of being too creepy. Patricia Clarkson plays Kunis's mother who shows up drunk and plays off the world's most idiotic cougar. Clarkson is a decent performer but here she is undone by the absurdity of the role and its over the top presentation. Jenna Elfman is also hilarious but none of that comes across in this junk. This is directed by Will Gluck who made the witty and funny teen comedy Easy A. He doesn't strike lightning twice here. We are given enticing musical street numbers that are suppose to reference films that are far better than this. Friends will benefit by just avoiding this stupid film. Score: 3 / 10
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It is difficult to believe that talented "Easy A" writer & director Will Gluck had anything to do with this shallow as well as satiric romantic comedy about a loquacious couple who tumble in the sack but shun wearing their feelings on the their respective sleeves. You'd think that these youngsters were the first who preferred sex without sentiment. Each of these commitment-leery lovers has been through the wringer in a previous relationship that left them with nothing but bad vibes and the desire to never succumb so such sadness again. Sexy Mila Kunis plays a single but sexually active corporate headhunter named Jamie who recruits Los Angeles-based website editor Dylan (Justin Timberlake of "The Social Network") to be the new art director opening at GQ magazine. Predictably, not only does Dylan take this dream job, but he also bundles up with Jamie in bed in an R-rated movie that lacks both steam and momentum. You will find about as much meaningful nudity here as you might find in an issue of Maxim magazine. The entire plot revolves around their relationship after coitus and the ups and downs that they endure before Gluck and scenarists Keith Merryman and David A. Newman bring the leads full circle in Grand Central Station in the Big Apple. Just to add some sparkle to the shenanigans we are treated to Patricia Clarkson cast as the liberated mom of our heroine who raves about the 1970s and Woody Harrelson as Tommy an openly gay sports writer. "Saturday Night Live" fans will recognize Andy Samberg breaking up with Mila in an opening gambit while Emma Stone ditches Timberlake. Probably the slickest thing that Gluck pulls off is his surprising cross-cutting between the guys and the gals in this scene. Initially, we assume that Mila and Jamie are breaking up until we see that it is two couples. Richard Jenkins injects some heavy-handed gravitas as Jamie's Alzheimer's addled father who steals every scene in which he appears. Gluck tries his best (or worst) to skewer the conventions of romantic comedies, but he only winds up skewering himself. Mind you, Mila has some nice-looking skin and Justin has a washboard belly to die-for if you're into looking physically fit. Unfortunately, good looks, great chemistry, and rapid-fire dialogue delivery cannot overcome the one cliché after another. Altogether, if you have not seen "When Harry Met Sally," watch "When Harry Met Sally after you see "Friends with Benefits."
My motivation for see this was that I thought 'No Strings Attached' was
hilarious and I like Milla Kunis. The previews for this film looked
like it would be funny, and though I don't really care for Justin as an
actor, I like him on 'SNL,' so, I thought he would at least be funny.
This seemed to me like it was a rushed project. I got the feeling the
whole time that this was written by some decent writers in the 2 nights
and filmed in 2 weeks. Everything felt rushed, predictable and cliché.
Maybe a better actor could have pulled Justin's lines off better,
giving them some punch...but instead, whenever he and Milla and long
diatribe's of banter, I felt like I was watching an acting scene in a
class, rather than a movie. It also felt like maybe they had as much
time to rehearse the scenes as a cold reading. The only good thing
about the movie was Woody Harrelson. He was great. Milla's mom was
good..., some of the lines were good, but too rushed through to really
come across as good or leave any weight, and Milla and Justin had good
chemistry. The only thing believable about this film was that they
would make good friends. A good couple, is questionable, but they at
least seemed to be having fun together. The movie was also extremely
formula with no twists or surprises. I didn't see the flash mob coming,
at the end, but, really, who cares. I would not call that a good or
emotional scene. It seemed more like this went on in a producer
meeting. "Flash mobs are big right now. We should throw one in there at
least a couple times. The audience loves it when the actors do a group
singing number in a film, and flash mobs are the next big thing!"
EHHHHHH!!!!! Wrong. There was one, of sorts, in 'Enchanted,' but it
worked only because it was a musical and was more of a Broadway number
than a flash mob. I didn't care about anyone in this film. And how can
you when it's paint-by-the-numbers formula without any real depth
whatsoever? Everything in this film was a gimmick to make you "feel"
something, but it was so all so transparent and spoon fed that it
didn't carry any weight.
Justin should stick to singing. He's not a good actor. Being a good sketch actor on 'SNL' does not mean you can read lines. The only reason he was halfway OK, but I wouldn't go as far as good, in "The Social Network' was because his part was small and he wasn't really acting, he just seemed to be reading lines and being himself. Not to mention, he's got a nice body but kind of Cro-Magnon looking. Without singing and dancing I don't really get his appeal...unless, of course, when he's Photoshopped. And him as an action star is even more ridiculous. What happened to the days of guys like Keanau Reeves? I mean, Jeremy Renner, Justin Timberlake, Adrian Brody? Seriously? None of these guys look like they could even take a serious punch, nor do they look lithe and stealth enough to avoid one. Though, I'm getting off track of the romantic comedy massacre, of this film.
It was on every level bad, other than Woody Harrleson, and completely unbelievable, on every level. The fact that Justin, or a 26-yr-old, is some high-paid sought after art director is ridiculous. They might as well have said he was a wealthy astronaut, which would have been just as believable. Topher Grace could pull off the young, over-achieving marketing director in that Dennis Quaid film, because he's a good actor...and they played up the fact that it was unusual for someone so young to be in that position.
Watch 'No Strings Attached,' rather than wasting any time on this film. Two great actors, great script, great chemistry, feel good. This is a film Milla should have turned down 'cause it did nothing for her career, and only cemented for me to avoid Justin in starring roles. He's just not good. The only film I liked him in was 'Southland Tales,' but he didn't say that much, does a musical number, and it was more of a cameo that added a funny element to the film. This was probably one of the worst romantic comedies I've seen in a long time. Two thumbs down.
STAY AWAY!!! This is a terrible movie!! Neither a fun bloke joke film or a sweet chick flick......this is just so bland!! If you look at the cover, think to yourself two friends,like each other then don't like each other, then.......!!! You have it!! You could of written this film!! No twists, no originality &no comedy!! Sure the lead roles do provide decent eye candy for which ever way you look at it but that is the BEST bit of this movie and to be honest neither are as hot as they think them selves. First off as this young, single and very attractive couple meet it does nt even cross there minds they might actually fancy each other....no in stead they become best buddys, sharing beers and cracks and gossiping away until.........OK lets have sex!!!! Then we move on to trying not to like each other.....and even throw in the ever so charming doctor...........very bad bit!! In whole this is a turkey. Bad acting, very thin script, the obvious parts and the chilled out easy going, fun loving girl that suddenly flips over..........????? Please be warned this is poor! only if you are mad about Timberlake should you waste your time watching this!!
"What Crap", would have made a much better title for this ridiculously
What is it foul? Do we really need to an explanation from Timberlake on why it's hard to urinate when a man is excited?
The film is replete with vulgarity's like this. It appears that rather than building on the film's few qualities, and it has a few, the producers decided to educate the opposite sex (whichever you happen to be) with crude innuendo on the other. It would appear they were trying to make the film interesting to 13 year old's.
This odd downplay to the audience in general goes hand in hand with the fact the film is simply a rehash of "No Strings Attached".
Mila Kunis, I expected better from you following, "The Black Swan"
Justin Timberlake, I expected nothing from you following, "Yogi Bear".
What a waste of time. Same boring script we've seen time and time again. Might have been a better movie if Timberlake and Harrelson exchanged roles. Horrible. Way overboard with the sexual situations and language. Couple of narcissistic persons with a complete lack of morality try to hook up. You know every move before it happens. I wonder if they have run out of ideas in Hollywood. The background music was way too distracting. I wasn't sure if they were showing a movie or promoting a music CD. Timberlake is completely unbelievable in his role. I thought I was watching "That Seventies Show" with the cast they had. Forget this one and rent another movie.
The thing about 'Friends with Benefits" is that you have, in fact, seen
it before. Not in the generic way the film implies that all romantic
comedies are the same. But this exact movie was released earlier this
year with the title "No Strings Attached". And what's worse is that
vapid, uninspired, Hollywood-love-fest original is actually better.
Unashamedly, I admit that I like romantic comedies. I do get very upset when Hollywood makes stupid ones that I don't like it, but I still watch them. The problems here stem from the fact that "Friends with Benefits" is a romantic comedy but thinks that it isn't. One of the jokes that lasts the entire run-time of the movie is that romantic comedies suck and the people who watch them are fundamentally stupid. I don't like being insulted and I especially don't like being insulted by something that is trying to survive on put-downs and pretending to be better than the very genre they belong to.
There is a fake romantic comedy that plays during this movie, usually serving as fodder for insults, and allows the film to point out everything that is wrong with it. I don't think the filmmakers are so daft to not realize that they are doing the exact same things, but I do think they expected their audience to not pick up on it.
Recently Jason Segel has been doing the rounds promoting his new Muppets movie. One of the points he likes making is that the humour is pure and innocent; that the jokes don't insult or put-down anyone or anything. I like Segel as much as the next person, but it astounds me that he could be so hypocritical that just three months earlier he appeared in a movie where every joke insulted somebody or something.
And I do mean every joke. We start with John Mayer insults and the obligatory Katherine Heigl jokes, move on to standard romantic comedy insults, then come back with some out-of-place jokes making fun of the Hudson River-landing pilot, and on the way back to more romantic comedy insults, shoot off some remarks about Kriss Kross, '90s pop bands, and of course, homosexuals. And I likely forgot some.
Contrary to the current popular stance, I like Justin Timberlake. He has been in a lot of movies recently, and he's usually one of the best things in them. He also has no problem insulting himself. Surprisingly, the movie never took that path.
If for some reason, you're still watching, beware that "Friends with Benefits" probably has the highest product placement total in recent history. There's a reason Timberlake's character is a marketing exec at GQ if they didn't make enough money at the box office, they would have off of their sponsors.
To be clear, "Friends with Benefits" is a romantic comedy. Girl is emotionally damaged, boy is emotionally unavailable. Girl falls for boy, boy falls for girl, but let's see how long before they both give in. If you don't like romantic comedies, then you won't like this. If you do like romantic comedies, then the filmmakers think you have a worthless opinion and you won't like it anyways. It is odd how that works out.
I was actually embarrassed for the headline actors, Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. The material was not good nor were the jokes. Justin Timberlake was bad enough to begin, as usual. Mila Kunis is normally better than this. I guess she was playing down to her material and co-star. Either way the acting was horrible as was the plot and the direction. A negative trifecta. If there were any redeeming factors to the film it was the supporting actors. All of which I felt did an excellent job with the material they had to work. Patricia Clarkson, Woody Harrelson, Richard Jenkins and even Jenna Elfman, respectively. The film was predictable which is OK in this genre. Just a sloppy project in every facet. Save your time and bypass this one.
|Page 3 of 21:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|