Friends with Benefits

I really like Justin Timberlake. I once wrote a piece explaining my belief that Timberlake is fundamentally unhateable and how frustrating that was because I felt like I should hate the guy but couldn't bring myself to honestly feel that way. His singing talents are undeniable (even if, like me, you're not a big fan of pop music), his appearances on Saturday Night Live are some of the best that show has had over the last decade, and he just seems like a relatively cool guy, the kind of celebrity who might just hang out with you and your loser friends if you invited him over to play Xbox and he didn't have anything else to do. I'm not sure, however, about how much I like Timberlake as a screen actor. He was excellent in "The Social Network" but followed that up with the atrocious "Yogi Bear" film (forgivable) and last month's "Bad Teacher" which I hated and in which he was thoroughly unconvincing. Later this year he'll appear in the sci-fi flick "In Time" but "Friends with Benefits" is his first attempt at a leading role, a hallmark moment even for a man as accomplished as Timberlake is. Let us hope, then, that "FWB" turns out to be nothing more than a minor blip on an otherwise stellar career.

The premise behind the first two acts of "Friends with Benefits" is just what the title would have you believe. Dylan (Timberlake), an oddly naïve native of Los Angeles comes to New York at the behest of Jamie (Mila Kunis), a corporate head hunter who plans to make Dylan the art director for GQ. Discontent with their dating records, the two friends decide to start hooking up under the assumption that neither will get emotionally invested in their purely physical relationship. As it always does, however, reality interferes and before long, both parties in this little arrangement begin to want more and yet (inevitably) both are too afraid to admit feelings. The final act falls into the typical "will they or won't they" back and forth that "FWB" openly mocked in the early stages as the audience tries to decide whether or not they care if they will or won't.

Neither Timberlake nor Kunis are capable of leading a comedic film at this point in their careers.

At this point in the review I usually try to run through a paragraph or two concerning what I like about a film followed by a few lines of criticism (or vice versa as the case may be). This time around, however, I feel compelled to simply lay out my list of issues as plainly as possible so that I can be sure none of you waste your time on this film.

1. Neither Timberlake nor Kunis are capable of leading a comedic film at this point in their careers. If director Will Gluck ("Easy A") had paired Timberlake with Emma Stone or Kunis with a John Krasinski type, you get the feeling that he could have gotten more out of "FWB." A veteran, comfortable, quality comedic actor in one of those two leading roles would have stabilized the film a bit and unfortunately we don't get that.

2. The best characters in "FWB" are too often hidden away in the background or kept off the screen altogether. Woody Harrelson is an American treasure, a genius comedic actor who excels at virtually everything he does. His portrayal of a gay sports editor is hilarious, by far the funniest part of the film, and yet his involvement in the narrative is negligible. Likewise, Richard Jenkins gives "FWB" its only genuine moments as Dylan's father whose brain has been ravaged by Alzheimer's/dementia. Always incredible, Jenkins gives a performance here that belongs in a much better film than "FWB" is when he could have easily mailed it in. And while this may seem slightly out of place, I wanted more of him and Harrelson, less of Timberlake and Kunis.

3. The soundtrack is relied upon far too excessively. To be clear: I dig the music that was selected for "FWB." It's fresh and upbeat, a solid mix of indie-rock and non-radio pop. But almost every scene in this movie has a different song not-so-subtly designed to drive the story and let you know how the audience is supposed to feel. This becomes distracting after a while but moreover, one of the major plot points in the early stages of "FWB" involves Dylan and Jamie ripping on this exact, patronizing technique that has plagued romantic comedies for decades.

4. Most importantly, "FWB" is not an R-rated comedy; it's a PG-13 romantic comedy with a bunch of cussing and a shot or two of someone's butt thrown in to ensure an R-rating. Again, to be clear: I have no problem with romantic comedies or PG-13 movies in general; I don't need a movie, comedy or otherwise, to be R-rated to enjoy it. But in a post-"Hangover" world, you can't do an R comedy halfway. In truth, the last act of "FWB", which is essentially a straight rom-com, is the most natural part of the film. The chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis feels stronger whereas it's exceptionally awkward beforehand. As far as films are concerned, I have very little patience for gimmicks and that's exactly what the R-rated add-ins feel like in "FWB."

There are some laughs along the way (mainly provided by Harrelson) and some enjoyable moments. Cameos are always fun, too, and this movie is filled with them. As a whole, however, "Friends with Benefits" is choppy and uncomfortable, a decent idea that just doesn't work and an example of the fact that a solid pedigree and a good cast doesn't always result in a quality film.

Watch the trailer for Friends With Benefits below.

• «Review: Larry Crowne
• IEF Main
• Review: Cars 2»