Friends with Benefits
Director: Will Gluck
Cast: Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis, Woody Harrelson, Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman and Richard Jenkins
DVD release: 16 December 2011
Rated: MA 15+
Fringe benefits to an OK film
It’s a brave movie that tells you up front how it’s planning to manipulate you. That however is just what director Will Gluck does in Friends with Benefits, his follow-up to his highly successful Easy A. In several early scenes, the film describes the “tricks” of the rom-com “trade”. Precisely what the point of that is, I’m not really sure, because Gluck then proceeds to inflict all of those same “tricks” on the audience as the film unfolds. I guess it might be the cinematic equivalent of “truth in advertising”, and it at least provides a nice touch of self-awareness to the movie.
As for the rest of the film
however, it doesn’t rise to
the level of Easy A. The script by Gluck and collaborators
Keith Merryman and David A. Newman is an odd beast. The film is billed
as a romantic comedy; but it’s neither overly romantic, nor especially
funny. Indeed, in the latter stages it veers into some rather serious
territory. The result is a film that feels quite disjointed and
decidedly under-cooked.
That said though, the film is held together by the undeniable on-screen chemistry between rising stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. The pair certainly sparkle in their scenes together, and find that elusive rapport to make the characters work.
As an aside, it’s a rather remarkable coincidence that the co-stars of Black Swan – Kunis and Natalie Portman – should follow their acclaimed work in that film with two films that have basically identical plots – Portman in No Strings Attached with Ashton Kutcher (also, coincidentally, one of Kunis’s co-stars from That 70s Show) and Kunis in this film.
The premise of both films is to explore the notion that men and women can have a sexual relationship without emotional involvement. The outcome of both is, unsurprisingly, that such a notion is unrealistic. Here, the eponymous “friends” are Jamie (Kunis) a single-minded recruiter and Dylan (Timberlake), an in-demand art director. The film starts with Jamie luring Dylan from Los Angeles to New York to work at GQ Magazine. After taking the job, the somewhat homesick Dylan realises that he knows no one in New York except Jamie, and she is kind enough to introduce him to her circle of friends. The pair begin socialising on a regular basis until the thorny subject of sex arises. Having both just come out of relationships, they decide that they can engage in sex without any emotional ties – “like playing tennis”. But can they really?
The film seems to have something of a split personality at times. For example, the subject-matter is on the raunchy side (even if it doesn’t reach Judd Atapow levels) and there are quite a few off-colour jokes, but the film is visually quite demure. There are only two substantive sex scenes (although one is quite extended), and they’re both rather tame, thanks to the use of strategically-placed and oddly shaped sheets. The closest thing to nudity is a shot of Timberlake’s bare behind, and the dialogue is mainly concerned with things other than sex.
What raunch there is – and most of the really funny comedy – comes via the character of Tommy, GQ's sports editor, played by Woody Harrelson. Tommy is gay, and you’d have to think is having a much better time than the soul-searching central couple.
Gluck certainly makes good use of locations in New York and Los Angeles in the film, giving us several visually striking scenes via the lens of DOP Michael Grady. The music is of the usual pop-rock variety that’s commonly associated with this genre, and includes songs from the likes of G. Love and Special Sauce. In one scene, the characters helpfully explain the significance of the music, in case you’ve never seen a rom-com before.
While Friends with Benefits is an easily digested and pleasant enough film, it never rises above that level. It’s a prototypical “OK movie”, neither so good as to warrant extensive praise, nor so bad as to invite rebuke. There’s certainly an audience for this type of film, but as an exercise in the cinematic arts, it never rises above the run-of-the-mill.
David Edwards