Ok so considering how I kind of went to town on the car crash that was No Strings Attached it was odd of me to even contemplate watching Friends With Benefits. Yet I did, and I liked it.
A brief rundown of the plot then is required. Jamie and Daryl become friends after she headhunts him to move from L.A to New York for the artistic director job at GQ magazine. They have both failed miserably at relationships previously, so after watching Jamie's favourite Rom-Com Daryl suggests they become 'friends with benefits'. It then goes through the motions of happy sex times, back to 'just friends', odd 'are they falling for each other?' moment, bad break up, and ultimately the Happy Ending.
This film stars Mila Kunis (who has worked with both NSA stars Portman and Kutcher) as Jamie and Justin Timberlake as Daryl, who I have to say does rather well. Now this may be because I have not seen the Social Network (I know shock horror), but I don't have much in Timberlakes acting past to compare to except for Bad Teacher and Alpha Dog. Everybody tells me and the films reviewers also that this and Bad Teacher were such steps backward for Timberlake after the Social Network, but I think these were opportunities for him to try out characters and his comedic talents. Kunis by far and away is the star of the film, but Timberlake manages to hold his own which I think is due to a confident director and a decent script.
Said director is a man called Will Gluck who directed the fantastic Easy A starring Emma Stone. Again a gripe of the proper critic is that Gluck has done so much better before, but though I agree Easy A is far superior it also had the benefit of being based on a piece of classic literature. Gluck and several writers have worked with a generic formula and tried to put a bit of pizazz into it, mainly through a great accompanying soundtrack and some fantastically choreographed flash mob dancers.
Another reason why I think I prefer FWB to NSA is that it IS formulaic, the girl is the romantic who wants the fairytale ending, the boy wants sex. Yes they are both damaged in some way, yes their families compete in the crazy stakes (one glue induced the other altzheimers so legitimately 'crazy'), but these are what you look for and feel almost comforted that its going the way you expect. No Strings Attached tried to do something different with the formula (girl was emotionally unavailable and the boy was soppy) and fell on its face.
Support cast are also key to a rom-coms success, and Will Gluck has the fortune to be able to use Patricia Clarkson as Kunis' nutty mother who cannot seem to remember who the father of her child is. Woody Harrelson does a fine job as Timberlakes gay Sports editor at GQ magazine, Jenna Elfman (Dharma & Greg) is her usual charming self as Timberlakes sister, and their father is played with no fear by Richard Jenkins (
Six Feet Under). You are not overwhelmed by supporting cast, they all have clearly defined roles and stick to them, including a possible Prince Charming and a very brief cameo by Masi Oka (Heroes).
As with No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits is a film largely about sex, so there is a lot of it. If you tend to shy away from films with gratuitous sex then please, don't watch either film. It is fairly explicit but tastefully done, you don't see much of the front of either actor, pretty much it is what you would expect from a film with this title.
Kunis and Timberlake have great chemistry, without it the film would have never worked, nor do I think Gluck would have made it with these two. It is funny, sweet, a little heartbreaking, exceptionally predictable and formulaic, but ultimately enjoyable. It doesn't matter how many romantic comedies are made, if they don't make you feel you wasted your time watching them they can be as predictable as the weather.
No comments:
Post a Comment