“Friends with Benefits”: A Cynical Rom-Com That Almost Hit the Mark
The romantic comedy “Friends with Benefits”, featuring the charismatic duo of Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, bravely ventures into the well-trodden territory of the genre, hinting at a truly refreshing and witty take. While it undoubtedly delivers a commendable number of genuine laughs and wisely sidesteps the pitfalls of excessive sappiness, the film ultimately navigates its course with a slightly frustrating sense of unfulfilled potential. It’s an enjoyable ride, but one that leaves you with the lingering thought that it could have soared even higher.
The narrative cleverly orchestrates the meeting of Dylan (Justin Timberlake), a successful West Coast designer newly unburdened by a recent breakup, and Jamie (Mila Kunis), a sharp New York headhunter similarly nursing the wounds of a failed relationship. Both are thoroughly disillusioned with the traditional trappings and emotional demands of romantic entanglements. It’s Jamie who, with a shrewd eye, recruits Dylan for a lucrative position at a fashion-forward magazine in the vibrant heart of the Big Apple. Against a backdrop of shared cynicism and a mutual desire for simplicity, they forge an unconventional pact: a purely physical relationship, a “friends with benefits” arrangement, designed to be completely devoid of emotional complexity or commitment.
A Refreshing Dose of Cynicism Amidst Rom-Com Tropes
Under the astute direction of Will Gluck, known for his work on “Easy A,” “Friends with Benefits” initially positions itself as a remarkably self-aware and invigorating departure from standard romantic comedy fare. The film masterfully and quite hilariously pokes fun at the genre’s most predictable and oft-repeated tropes. This self-referential humor culminates in a particularly memorable “movie within a movie” sequence, where a lovestruck Jason Segel delivers an over-the-top, almost cringeworthy display of romantic gestures, brilliantly underscoring the inherent absurdity and clichés that permeate so many of these films. This clever narrative device allows “Friends with Benefits” to simultaneously exist within the genre it satirizes, while maintaining a knowing wink at the audience.
Navigating the “No Strings Attached” Minefield with Finesse
Perhaps one of “Friends with Benefits’” most compelling strengths lies in its ability to largely avoid the saccharine pitfalls that ensnared its similarly-themed contemporary, “No Strings Attached.” While the latter quickly spiraled into a overly sweet and less believable romance, “Friends with Benefits” remarkably preserves its cynical, grounded edge for the majority of its runtime. Although it eventually succumbs to some degree of sentimentality, it does so with far less contrivance and earnestness. Mila Kunis delivers a standout performance, radiating a natural comedic timing and charm that feels authentically her own, proving herself undeniably as a better, more natural comedic fit than Natalie Portman, to whom she was inevitably compared due to the films’ parallel plots. Justin Timberlake continues to solidify his impressive acting chops, demonstrating a delightful willingness to poke fun at his own celebrity persona. His comedic confidence is particularly evident and memorable in scenes where he appears in little more than a pair of socks, a running gag that consistently lands.
Quirky Supporting Characters That Elevate the Flavor
The film’s excellent supporting cast provides a much-needed and enjoyable injection of varied personality and comedic relief into the narrative. Woody Harrelson is absolutely side-splitting as Tommy, a flamboyant gay sports editor whose outrageous quips and larger-than-life presence steal every scene he’s in. His performance is a highlight, adding a layer of unpredictable humor. Richard Jenkins, on the other hand, grounds the film as Dylan’s father, who is quietly battling the harrowing realities of Alzheimer’s. While his performance is poignant, the thematic weight of his character presents some of the film’s most notable challenges.
A Puzzling Tonal Disparity
However, it is this very attempt to integrate serious and heavy themes, such as the struggles associated with Alzheimer’s, that creates a noticeable and somewhat jarring disconnect within the film. The narrative awkwardly lurches from lighthearted sexual escapades and comedic banter to the somber realities of a debilitating disease, leading to a strange and often uncomfortable juxtaposition. This inconsistency in tone raises legitimate questions about the filmmakers’ creative intent and their execution of such disparate subject matter side-by-side. Despite these tonal missteps and the film’s overall flaws, “Friends with Benefits” deserves significant credit for having the courage to sidestep the overly simplistic and often saccharine “happily ever after” conclusion that has become such a defining, and often predictable, hallmark of the romantic comedy genre. This nuanced ending, while not perfect, demonstrates a commendable commitment to a more complex and realistic depiction of relationships.
