Every once in a while a director comes along who makes movies
that tickle everyone else’s fancies but mine. I’ve never found Woody Allen’s
comedies to be as legendary as everyone else does. I don’t think Scorsese’s classic
period is as good as everyone else does. On some level, what they do just
doesn’t speak to me the same way that it does to other people. It’s starting to
seem like, on a smaller scale, Will Gluck is one of those directors for me.
Being an Emma Stone fan I was kind of looking forward to last year’s Easy A. It looked like it had some
potential to be an under the radar teen movie. And when it came out, everyone
seemed to think that it was just that. I heard a lot of praise about what a
diamond in the rough it was. Me, I thought it was smug and pretentious; a shallow
teen movie that believed too much in its own cleverness. Watching Gluck’s new film
Friends With Benefits gave me exactly
the same reaction. I think a lot of people will be calling this one of the most
smart and refreshing romantic comedies to come out in a while. For me, it just
felt masturbatory in the way it hid its shallowness with jokey, Meta
deconstruction.
The jokes are constant, delivered rapid fire. The characters
don’t so much trade dialogue as they quip at each other. That might be okay if
the barbs being traded were hysterical, but here they’re not. Every once in a
while a one liner hits, but the sheer multitude of them that get thrown out there
and fail ruins the comedic batting average. When one in five jokes are
successful, it starts to feel like the movie you’re watching is trying too
hard. And that’s uncomfortable to sit through. Don’t get me wrong though, when
the movie hits, it’s pretty charming. I liked the bits about George Clooney
being the friends with benefits guru, there’s a sneezing gag that was pretty
funny, there’s an ongoing bit about being bad at math that got to me, but for
every one of those there were four eye rollers.
The main conceit of this film, that two single people
attempt to have a sexual relationship without involving emotions or the typical
trappings of dating, is one that has famously already been explored in this
year’s very similar No Strings Attached.
A lot of people are incredulous at the similarities between the two movies; but
they wouldn’t have been a problem as long as this one had good characters and
told its story in an engaging way. Unfortunately, the entire basis of this
movie existing seems to be the oh-so-clever but oh-so-unoriginal conceit of
watching two young people have an untraditional relationship. Other than that, it
feels undercooked.
The best thing it has going for it is the leads. Justin
Timberlake and Mila Kunis are big stars, good actors, and are both ridiculously
attractive. When put up against No
Strings Attached, which had a bad-at-comedy Natalie Portman and a generally
awful Ashton Kutcher, this film wins hands down. Kunis especially knocks
everything out of the park and is leagues better than the script she is given
to work with. Timberlake is a bit spotty, he comes off as uncomfortable in a
couple of the dramatic scenes, but he’s a big enough presence to make up for
it. They both deserve better. The other big presence in the film is Woody
Harrelson as the gay Sports Editor working under Timberlake at his new job. He
throws himself into the role with typical Harrelson aplomb, but that means
delivering all of his cheeky, super-comfortable-with-being-gay dialogue through
a big, shit-eating grin. Harrelson seems to have bought into the cleverness of
the script, but nobody clued him in that cleverness is never palatable when
paired with smugness. Especially when said, supposedly clever dialogue amounts
to little more than talking about wieners. Patricia Clarkson also shows up in
the film as the Kunis character’s filthy mother, and she’s good for a few
laughs, but she’s playing the same free spirit, inappropriate comment making
mother that she did in Easy A. It’s
only taken two movies for me to get tired of it and start wishing she’d stick
to more serious roles.
Despite the fact that the lead actors were the right choices
for the characters, Friends With Benefits
suffers because it never gives them anything interesting to do. Much of the
first act is a bland tour of New York hot spots. The second act drags along as
you watch aimless people go on dates. And then the third act rushes conflict
and a climax into what has been to that point a very lackadaisical film. What Friends With Benefits mainly concerns
itself with is privileged white people in fabulous settings doing fabulous
things. At some point Hollywood has settled on the idea that this is what
sells, and it’s all we get in romantic comedies. How about real people, with
real problems, trying to figure out real relationships? Does anybody think that
might be an interesting thing to base a movie on? No? Oh well.
The characters in this film have reached all of their goals,
they are struggling towards nothing, and there is no conflict in the plot to be
seen. We’re expected to be enthralled watching them just because of how
attractive they are. That may work for the magazine photo spreads that
Timberlake’s character edits, but for a narrative film it ends up feeling pretty
hollow. And the only thing offered to break the tedium is a series of humorously
staged sex scenes. If that is your bag, then you might be okay, but to me the
humorously awkward sex scene has become the fart joke of the last five years. I
could really do without their obvious punch lines and PG-13, stunt-butt nudity.