|Page 4 of 21:||             |
|Index||201 reviews in total|
This felt so predictable and lacked any great acting; it felt like I'd
seen a version of this movie many times before.
I'm also just not a fan of Justin Timberlake as an actor; I don't think he's believable at all. Also love Shaun White but what was he thinking taking that horrific part?! His role was so odd...not funny or necessary; just weird.
The characters want to avoid clichés but the whole movie was one big cliché.
There was nothing overly humorous, new, or unique about this movie so doesn't stand out in terms of romantic comedy titles.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Actually I will start by saying something good about this, it won't
take long though. All the good I can find in this movie is the main
characters acting. Both Kunis and Timberlake handles their respective
roles very well as they usually do, and it's easily seen that they work
good together. That was the good part.
To the bad parts: Come on! I don't know how many times I've seen movies like this. Just another romantic sex comedy to put in the pile. They meet and talk, they have sex, they fight, the guy contacts the girl, and it ends with forgiving and a kiss. I love new creative concepts. Oh, I forgot to mention they have even more sex before they fight.
There are a lot of oneliners in "Friends with Beneftis" and quick answers we all know doesn't happen in real life. It can be cool with a fast dialogue in movies, absolutely, but it's happening too frequently here to make it somewhat realistic. I'm sorry to say it's sometimes pathetic how predictable this is. Can't they come up with some new scripts in Hollywood anymore? It even went so far they have a scene by the Hollywood sign to fill out some minutes.
No, I can't recommend this. As mentioned both Kunis and Timberlake are brilliant actors but with a bad and predictable script it doesn't help much.
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.
*** 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
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.
I was surprised to learn that this film was by the director of the
engaging "Easy A." In "Friends with Benefits," he elicits so-so
performances from a wonderful cast as if it was his central purpose.
The script was written by three men, but sounds as if written by a middle-aged-plus lady a la the horrible Nancy Meyers, straining to seem "daringly" dirty, up-to-the-minute hip and fitfully "meta." There are plenty of references to movies and digital culture, but few laughs, and I never felt any human connection with the characters. The dialog is delivered in a pressured way, with each new line beginning at the instant the previous speaker finishes, with never a pause or overlap. The editor would usually cut at that instant, giving some scenes a very clunky rhythm, with consequent injury to any flow or naturalism.
FWB's scattered references to standard romcom memes don't seem so witty finally, given the script's failure to subvert or transcend them. Its would-be feel-good conclusion is unearned and false.
Although not very fruitful, Justin Timberlake already has on his back a filmography of more than a fortnight of titles like actor. He will not always play the flute and will be hired to play the roles of Zuckerberg's partner in 'The Social Network' or one of Nick Cassavetes's 'Alpha Dog' dealers - but there he is, with productions designed (almost) entirely he. With the right to friction is based on several formulas. The first, pure Hollywood marketing: to join in a romantic comedy to two stars or promises of fashion, Timberlake and Mila Kunis, the surprise, revelation or whatever you want of 'Black Swan', the thriller of Darren Aronofsky. The second, to resurrect for the umpteenth time, although with more sex, the old formula of the comedies with Doris Day and Rock Hudson. The third, to compose a script - part of an argument co-written by Harley Peyton, producer and screenwriter of several episodes of 'Twin Peaks', who would say it - would be applauded in some of Robert McKee's master classes, Perfectly gutted, his scenes dramatically strong - that is to say - and those of relaxation, the gags scattered in moderation - is a "serious" film about love and dislike, about sex with or without sex, about, in the Depth, the impossibility of platonic love or relationship without emotions and desires - and the two or three secondary characters incorporated by veteran actors who give brightness to the subject, but they are not totally digressions: the mother of the protagonist, a nostalgic- ____________________________________________________________________
This is a good idea for a film, which was done slightly less badly in
No Strings Attached.
The two main characters in this film are boring and unlikeable. Justin Timberlake's character lacks a personality and Mila Kunis' character is arrogant. It was promoted as funny, sexy and romantic - but it fails miserably on all three counts. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen - and I've seen thousands.
In 1989, Meg Ryan faked an orgasm, Billy Crystal droned about "sex
getting in the way" of male- female friendship, and the basis for
nearly every romantic comedy since was formed "When Harry Met Sally".
This film follows the same basic premise...but at the same time turns
it completely on its head.
For a basic plot summary, "Friends with Benefits" sees "headhunter" (or business recruiter) Jamie (Mila Kunis) meet Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and try to convince him to move to New York City to work for GQ. After seeing the sights and getting to know each other a bit, Jamie & Dylan (in order to avoid all the "complications" of a normal relationship) decide to engage in a "just sex" type of mutual agreement. From there, of course, things begin to veer off course and get a bit tenuous between the two.
Considering that this type of film has been done to death, "Friends With Benefits" is actually pretty good. Justin & Mila have great on-screen chemistry, the plot is a good mix of sappy & serious, and (at times) it will make you laugh (although many of those will be uncomfortable chuckles if watching with an audience).
Besides the irreverent fare (which would probably prevent this movie from being a "classic" anyway), the only problem I had with this film was how strange it was for the two leads to be playing against type. Usually, Timberlake is the "crazy guy" and Kunis is the "uptight witchy girl"...that is how we are accustomed to seeing those actors. Here, however, Timberlake is a bit more reserved while Kunis goes through a gambit of emotions from beginning to end. The chemistry between the two, as I mentioned, was great, but it was awkward seeing them against type.
Overall, though, this is a decent rom-com that provides (in equal parts): sexual escapades, tongue-in-cheek humor, character development, & an engaging plot. It may not be an all-time great, but "Friends with Benefits" most definitely has its moments.
Friends with benefits is a 2011 comedy starring Justin Timberlake and
Mila Kunis as two friends who decide to have sexual intercourse one
night and never speak about it eve again and remain friends. The film
stands out as a bit of a remake of No Strings Attached(2010). I loved
this movie so darn much,it was absolutely hilarious probably from that
guy who the hard guy in Zombieland(2009)and also Justin Timberlake who
I hate as a singer and actor,Mila Kunis was OK in this film nothing
great,I think there was somebody else who should have played her but
apart from that everything was great. Also,really liked Patrica
Clarkson from the TV remake of Carrie in this as the mom.
Friends with Benefits is a awesome comedy.
|Page 4 of 21:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|