CAST: Justin Timberlake (Dylan), Mila Kunis (Jamie), Patricia Clarkson (Lorna), Jenna Elfman (Annie), Bryan Greenberg (Parker), Richard Jenkins (Mr. Harper), Woody Harrelson (Tommy) and Emma Stone (Kayla);DIRECTOR: Will Gluck;SCREENWRITER: Keith Merryman, David A. Newman ;PRODUCER: Mr. Gluck, Martin Shafer, Liz Glotzer, Jerry Zucker and Janet Zucker ;EDITOR: Tia Nolan MUSICAL DIRECTOR ;GENRE: Romantic Comedy;CINEMATOGRAPHER: Michael Grady;DISTRIBUTOR: Screen Gems
The greatest problem this movie poses is its very understanding of sex as merely an emotional consummation of a romantic relationship. It is enough to have gone 5 dates with a guy so that sleeping with him becomes acceptable. It is simply a physical need, like hunger or sleep, which needs to be addressed. It never mentions commitment and responsibility as part of it. As the movie title implies, SEX is just a BENEFIT that comes with having a boyfriend/girlfriend,instead of being an intimate act between two people within the confines of a perpetual vow to love each other exclusively.
LOCATION: New York & Los Angeles, USA; RUNNING TIME: 107 minutes
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2
Cinema Rating: For viewers 18 years old and above
The movie tries to place a contemporary spin on an old “boy meets girl-loves girl but doesn’t know it” plot with sex in the equation. It follows how best friends Jamie (Mila Kunis), the emotional wreck, and Dylan(Justin Timberlake), the emotionally unavailable, decide one night that they can push their friendship a little further without having to worry about the emotional entanglement that comes after. So after some time of sexual trysts, their friendship deepens until… bam …they fall in love but refuse to admit it to themselves, much more to each other. So, their friendship is tested, they part ways and realize they can’t live without each other. Of course, as any other romantic comedies, in the end the boy gets the girl. (So much for not wanting to do another romantic cliché.)
Let’s look at the movie as a romantic comedy. Was it funny? At times. Was it romantic? A little? Was it a genius? No. And here’s why. The plot is tired formula. You immediately knew where it will go, how it will end and how it will get there. Even the dad suffering from Alzheimer’s or the gay friend who served as triggers for Dylan to reflect and realize his feelings is absolutely pathetic. The comedy was mostly derived from the awkwardness of the sex scenes, which have elicited more frowns and disgust than chuckles. The effort to give an old plot a fresh approach failed because save for the awkwardness of the premise, the movie had nothing more to offer.
Technically, Friends with benefits is acceptable. The acting was passable, although Kunis exerted more effort than Timberlake who probably thinks that baring his butt makes up for his shallowness. Their chemistry, however, was good and believable. The scoring was cute and made up for the lack of emotional sympathy of the scenes. Overall, this is not one of those romantic comedies you’d like to watch with a significant other.
The sexual cannot be without emotional and spiritual attachment for the partner because this is when you bare yourself and your soul to someone whom you trust and who will accept you for who you are. That is why it should be exclusively for mature adults who are willing to commit to marriage.
Even the end scene failed to redeem the convoluted morals of the story as we see Dylan and Jamie passionately trying to get under each other’s clothes in public.
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS should be for discerning adults who have mature consciences so that they can clearly distinguish between being genuinely funny and being contemptible.
