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 3 of 21: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 203 reviews in total 

28 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

A film with nothing

Author: dbrando from United States
29 July 2011

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."

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

JT and MK carries this wagon that lacks fresh ideas and full of clichéd treatment

Author: Rameshwar IN from India
6 January 2017

Reviewed July 2011

Well the movie turned out to be exactly I have pictured it to be. Lots of clichéd romantic stuff. Decent humor occasionally. Lovely Mila Kunis. Surprisingly not so annoying Justin Timberlake. Good chemistry between them. Happily ever after ending.

This very same concept has been exploited quite a few times recently with 'Love, Sex and Other Drugs' as well as 'No Strings Attached'. So I am not going to get into the details about the plot baring one, it has different leads.

Now that I am done with my neutral and positive points of view, lets get to the critic stuff. There is absolutely no fresh point it deals with that has been dealt 100 times before. No innovative/brilliant screenplay or narration, cinematography/visuals or background score. There is no element of surprise and it doesn't even try to be a tearjerker as it is not packing any of the above other qualities. Just trying to be a money spinner riding on it's likable leads.

You don't miss anything by missing it, you don't gain anything by watching it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Benefits to be had if you spend time with these friends

Author: slightlymad22 from United Kingdom
12 August 2014

Following on from the almost identical "No Strings Attached" staring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman which grossed over $100 million, this movie replaces Kutcher and Portman with the impossibly gorgeous pairing of Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis who make an engaging romantic couple.

Modern Family's Nolan Gould has a small role as Timberlake's nephew and Woody Harrelson simply steals the movie, he owns every scene he is in as a gay sports editor.

The writer and director set us up for what could have been a great moment-one which we expect to see, but it never takes place. Harrelson is constantly asking Timberlake to go out for drinks, so the can hit on men and women respectively. Timberlake always refuses, but half way through the movie he agrees. At this point we expect some funny scenes watching Harrelson on the prowl. When we don't see it, we miss it.

Friends With Benefits is not without it's clichés, but overall a pleasant way to spend some time.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Movies With No Benefits.

Author: Python Hyena from Canada
11 August 2015

*** 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

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A really good movie...

Author: Taylor Kingston from Australia
19 October 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love this movie so much. It's really good and really adorable. Sadly, it has almost the exact same plot line as No Strings Attached, but what are you going to do. I want to let you know how much I enjoyed this movie. I enjoyed it so much, that I grew to like Justin Timberlake. Before seeing this movie, I did not care for him at all. That's how persuasive this movie was.

This movie is about two people who randomly meet, and who are put together through work and fall madly in love. But not in the way you'd think. They meet, don't like each other, become friends, become friends with benefits, hence the title, and then they fall in love. This movie completely avoids the clichés of romantic comedies. And is a terrific watch.

Overall, I give this movie an 8 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

How to sell the same product again to the same person.

Author: westsideschl from United States
5 January 2012

Yes, the movie made money. Yes, it was filmed in L.A. and N.Y. - where else, duh! Yes, the old salesmen trick of repackaging the same product to sell to the same schmuck by changing the packaging a little works as usual and always has and always will. So what do the cloistered writers, producers and directors in N.Y. & L.A. do with their lives well, sit in little pretend manly cubicles trying to tweak another dollar out of the rom-com boxed-in consumer. What is the formula that's tweaked? Middle class white professionals that cuss a lot to bluff toughness; sex dominates their discussions; monetary self interest dominates their social consciousness; parties, bars and objects- du-jour their support system. What's tweaked? Change an actor or two but not too many; change an office/occupation but not too many; change the social scenes but not too many. Everything else stays the same predictable self including the ending. Ah hah moment, the monetary comfort of predictability in exchange for the psychological comfort of predictable fantasy.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Worst Romantic comedy ever

Author: mac_martino from Netherlands
19 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As with all comedies you will know from the first 5 minutes who will end up with whom.

This movies is filled with nice features like flash mob action, but basically this movie is slow paced, not worth watching.

I was watching this movie with my girlfriend, after 20 min she asked me If we could please leave the theater. And we did, we went out to watch another movie.

Mila, you were funny in that 70's show, but Justin is bringing the worst out of you.

Justin was even more boring then he was in Bad teacher, As I quote not worth watching

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Overly cliché and laboured

Author: p-stepien from United Kingdom
30 June 2012

After another failed relationship high-rolling blog entrepreneur Dylan Harper (Justin Timberlake) and head-hunter Jamie Rellis (Mila Kunis) decide to forfeit on love and commitments. Per chance Jamie headhunts the LA settled Dylan to become the chief editor of GQ monthly, the New York. On his arrival to the Big Apple the two hitch onto their instant connection, chatting through the days and wise-cracking on the same wave-length. Not wanting to dissolve the friendship, but at the same time in the midst of an ongoing sex-drought, the two decide to enter an understanding: Just sex. No strings attached. What happens from then on is... pretty anticipatable. At first things are perfectly fine, but then an epiphany or two changes the state of affairs into something less raunchy and more heartwarming.

Romantic comedies are essentially my guilty pleasure (psst... don't pass the word around), often intaking a few to lessen the intensity levels following more ambitious cinema. Despite being able to fill in the dots several scenes ahead, they do offer a certain respite and touch the less cynical side of a human being. However cliché and stereotypical the two leads or predictable the outcome, the key issue is proper chemistry and some honest laughs. Unfortunately "Friends with Benefits" offers two mildly intriguing characters with pet peeves and supposedly cute idiosyncrasies, who are provided with well-meant, but laboured, dialogue. They end up attempting to talk there way into the viewer's sympathy with mildly entertaining punchlines, forced deliveries reeking of pretentiousness or mistimed comedic flow. Even worse some of the ideas spun into the move are outdated (like the whole flash mob concept) and just don't help to build the character's credibility.

The best thing in the movie is Dylan's father (played by Richard Jenkins), an Alzheimer afflicted heart-warming character, which single-handedly manages to instill a sense of honesty to the end resolution, despite all the dismembered emotionality of preceding events. Unfortunately for the lead cast the show is basically stolen by supporting actors with Jamie Clarkson as Jamie's hippie sex crazed mom and Woody Harrelson as a gay sports editor stealing all of the thunder whenever on screen.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Uff, this was bad

Author: plasticanimalz from United States
21 April 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Very very bad!!

Author: jshee76 from Stamford, England
24 August 2012

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 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!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 21: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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