Is 'Friends With Benefits' Just A Casual Cinematic Fling?

My first year of college, I was having dinner with friends when one girl casually mentioned a “friend” with whom she had a purely physical rendezvous every time she came home. She then showed another girl a few pictures and texts between them, the content of which still keep me up at night.

No, I didn’t see the pictures or texts, although the bulging eyes and gaping mouth of the person reading them surely signaled they were the stuff of “Cosmo” articles or, unless my imagination is running away with me, the type of material that fills those websites. You know, the kind you need a credit card to visit.

I’m not a prude nor do I object to such hook-ups. But having been a home-schooled student throughout my childhood (a rather hook-up-less atmosphere), the concept was foreign to me, the stuff of movies rather than reality.

But is it reality? Does having a no-strings-attached relationship work? The new film “Friends With Benefits” tries to answer that question, but it really doesn’t. In fact, the film accomplishes little it sets out to do.

Justin Timberlake plays Dylan, a graphic designer, who moves from Los Angeles to New York to work for GQ. Mila Kunis is Jaime, a headhunter, who scouted Dylan for the job.

They become friends until Jaime mentions she wishes it were possible to have a purely physical relationship with someone and that someone turns out to be Dylan. They will stay friends and, when the feeling arises, have sex much in the way people meet for a game of tennis, according to Dylan. Just play and shake hands and part ways.

It works for a while, but things become complicated, as we all knew it would. Two good-looking, charismatic movie stars can’t just hook-up without emotions getting in the way, silly.

While all this is happening, the leads often talk about romantic comedy clichés: the teary confessions, the meetings, the sappy ending. “Real life is not like the movies,” they say.

But Dylan and Jaime’s life is. It has the teary confessions, the happenstance meetings, the sappy ending. It has the Act 2 break-up and the “I gotta tell him/her how I feel before it’s too late” climax.

I’m sure that screenwriters, Keith Merryman, David A. Newman and Will Gluck thought that, by lampooning a few of those clichés, the audience would overlook the triteness not played for laughs. They were wrong. By making fun of a few clichés, it actually drew attention to the dozens of others meant to be taken seriously.

What this film does have going for it is its cast. Kunis and Timberlake make an impressive movie couple and have wonderful charisma.  When I first saw Kunis on screen in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (one of my favorite comedies of the last decade), she reminded me of an old movie star, the type that glowed radioactive off the screen.

She’s still as radiant in this film, endearing and feisty and unassumingly beautiful, with great comic timing. Timberlake isn’t overshadowed by Kunis, which is more a compliment than it sounds. He has a strong on-screen presence, his comedic chops are sharp and his more emotional scenes are natural.

The supporting cast is strong too, with Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman and Woody Harrelson. I particularly enjoyed Richard Jenkins as Timberlake’s dad who’s struggling with early onset Alzheimer’s. While that somber subplot didn’t quite fit tonally with the rest of the film, his performance is beautifully acted.

I was optimistic about “Friends With Benefits” for the first half. It was breezy but funny, with an appropriate level of risqué humor (although, given the adult nature of the plot, they could have pushed it even further) and likeable leads. But the second half, filled with Rom-Com clichés, soppy storylines and contrived occurrences, just felt bloated and uninspired.

It’s still better than most romantic comedies out there, although that’s not saying much, but it falls incredibly short of films like “Bridesmaids” or “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.”

Quick Note: This year, another film with a similar storyline came out. While “Friends With Benefits” is no cinematic masterpiece, it’s a strong improvement on “No Strings Attached,” the Natalie Portman-Ashton Kutcher vehicle, which is fairly soulless, brainless and gutless (how can a movie about two sex buddies be so watery and sitcom-level risqué?)

What I'd see this week:

• For some adventure - “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2”
• For some laughs - “Horrible Bosses” / "Friends With Benefits"
• For some drama - “Beginners" / "Terri*"

• For the kids - “Winnie The Pooh”

*If you can find a theater playing it, catch this quirky, quiet indie that speaks volumes about stereotypes, bullying and teenage isolation without the the usual preachiness or winking cuteness.