Friends with Benefits

Much better than No Strings Attached, but it's also no prize. The whole thing follows a typical template from beginning to end. Far more sympathetic and believable than the main protagonists were almost all of the supporting characters, undoubtedly the best of which was the perfect Woody Harrelson. The guy is just divine. I also expected it to be even funnier, even though the gag with the mobile app to identify "women's days" is perfect. (24/09/2011)

At the start of Friends with Benefits, director Will Gluck bids adieu to the protagonist of his “Hughes-ian” Easy A (a surprising cameo by Emma Stone), thus transitioning from an immature schoolgirl to adult characters who take sex as a natural part of life and a condition for their own contentment. I would highlight “their own”, but there are no feelings involved and the mere satisfying of physical needs is the reason why Dylan and Jamie end up in the same apartment and in the same bed. Unlike the protagonists of more conservative romantic comedies, they aren’t shy about openly saying what they want from each other. Long gone are the days when THAT, always hanging in the air, was never mentioned (the “Lubitsch touch”). With its wild pace during the first half, Friends with Benefits is nevertheless reminiscent of classic screwball comedies (including the nice work with contrasts both between the sexes and between New York and LA), though the filmmakers’ intention was probably to nostalgically recall the sexually guileless hippie era. Seemingly flown in from that era is the wacky mother played by Patricia Clarkson (who somewhat repeats herself; see Whatever Works), and the 1969 open-relationship comedy Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice runs on the television in Jamie’s apartment. The film’s ending is predictably far from being any kind of (sexual) revolution, but the likable actors get to it with their heads held high despite the aptly depicted, though shoddily constructed, relationship obstacles placed in their path. (I concede that they rather stumble toward the end.) Yes, even Justin Timberlake, whose acting I promise not to make fun of anymore. 75% (22/09/2011)

Who would have thought that a no-strings-attached relationship between Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake would be more spontaneous, likable and earnest than the same sort of fling between Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher (No Strings Attached)? (22/09/2011)

There is a little bit of life in there, and it's fluffed up by the skillful screenwriter into a very effective dialogue whirlwind. Unfortunately, at the end, the film is hurt by exactly what it had been making fun of for more than two-thirds of its runtime, i.e., the tired clichés of all romantic films far and wide. However, thanks to the great actors, it reminded me that even men have a delicate sensitive soul that can be touched sometimes. :) [The bad thing is that the only significant impression I have the day after watching it is Mila Kunis’ absolutely luxurious character.] (19/01/2012)

The combination of the beautiful Mila and the likeable Justin is incredibly great. At times (often, actually) they looked really charming together. And Justin Timberlake finally showed that he can act. The whole plot is engaging and full of fresh jokes and situations. It didn't lack naturalness and flair. Unexpectedly, it also beats Kutcher and Portman for me. I'm tempted to overrate it for the sake of cuteness alone; 4.5 stars. (09/01/2012)