Friends with Benefits

“Friend with Benefits” is a much better movie than “No Strings Attached” because the former is fun and the latter is not. Why the comparison? Well, as many have pointed out (including me), both movies, both released in 2011, revolve around the exact same premise: a man and a woman, who have just recently become good friends, mutually decide to use each other in order to satisfy their sexual desires, no strings attached. How very modern a concept.

However, there is a difference. While “No Strings Attached” was drab and boring, “Friends with Benefits” is zany and fun. While “No Strings Attached” was more of a dramedy, “Friends with Benefits” is very much a comedy. While “No Strings Attached” took its concept much more seriously, “Friends with Benefits” for the most part does not, and is all the better for it.

The movie begins with both of our protagonists being dumped, coincidentally (or not?) outside of movie theatres. Dumpee number one is Dylan (Justin Timberlake, “The Social Network”), and dumpee number two is Jamie (Mila Kunis, “Black Swan”). Dylan is an art director for a Los Angeles-based internet company, and Jamie is an executive headhunter in New York City who has been asked to recruit Dylan to interview for a job at GQ magazine.

So, Dylan flies to NYC, meets Jamie, does the interview and gets an offer. However, Dylan is unnerved by the thought of making the move from LA to the Big Apple. In an attempt to persuade him otherwise, she takes him on a tour around the beautiful city, shows him the magnificent sites and gazes at the stars with him. But it’s a cheesy dance routine in the middle of Times Square that finally persuades him to take the job and move into the city (it sort of makes more sense in the movie. Sort of).

And then Dylan and Jamie start to hang out together, watch crappy romance movies together (not including “No Strings Attached,” I don’t think), and then decide to fuck. Yes, they’re quickly going at it like horny little bunnies in the middle of mating season, but they’re doing this on one condition: no feelings, no emotions, no emotional strings to hold them down (like Pinocchio).

It’s all very casual; they strip each other, they hump each other, they please each other, yet there remains no romance or any of that love-dovey claptrap going on between them. And they go about their daily lives like nothing ever happened, staying as just two normal friends who happen to know the insides as well as the outsides of each other. But can it possibly stay this way? Will sex remain just a physical act between them? Will there be feelings sparked between them or will they continue as nothing more than friends with benefits? Well, of course they won’t, you silly billy! What are you, blind?!

Under the direction of Will Gluck (who gave us the fabulously clever “Easy A” last year), “Friends with Benefits” is shockingly a pure and utter joy to behold. Why shocking? Because this is a film that I, along with many others, assumed wouldn’t work, that I was sure was just another brainless rom-com to be brushed aside like a common fly crawling its way up your arm. It seems I was a little bit wrong.

There’s nary a second that passes by in “Friends with Benefits” that isn’t funny or amusing, poignant or moving. The dialogue is fast and zany, very hip and comical. The comedy is both silly and raunchy, tickling ribs on what is quite a regular basis. The sex scenes are frequent, presented in a manner that is fresh and original. Plus, there is some drama to be had, with Dylan’s father (the extraordinary Richard Jenkins, “Let Me In”) suffering from Alzheimer’s disease; this doesn’t feel crammed into the plot just for the sake of it, instead introduced very naturally and used effectively without the onsets of cinema-induced depression.

Timberlake and Kunis make for fantastic sexy-buddy leads, fitted with the kind of sexual chemistry that could only have occurred by accident; you certainly can’t make this happen on purpose. They’re both bouncy and energetic in their roles, looking like they are genuinely having fun playing these characters, and not at our expense. Their characters are actually a would-be couple for whom we do truly care about; that’s right, a modern-day romantic comedy with protagonists who are worthy of our empathy. Shocking, I know.

There is also an excellent cast of wonderful actors on hand here who manage to paint rather memorable supporting characters with their limited screen-time. There’s Woody Harrelson (“Zombieland”) as Tommy, the sports editor for GQ who owns a speedboat and is gay without being turned into a campy stereotype. There’s Patricia Clarkson as Lorna, Jamie’s ridiculously laid-back, hopelessly quirky mother who has memories of the ’70s still playing in her head. And there’s the aforementioned Jenkins, whose character delivers “that big important speech” to Timberlake near the end of the movie.

Yes, the film is all formula; it’s as predictable as any other rom-com you’ve ever seen, ever, and it seems to know this itself. Still, it works in a way that is most unexpected, i.e. you find yourself caring about what is ensuing on-screen and what will transpire between these characters at the end of the story. Sure, you know what‘s going to happen and the basics of how it will happen, but it’s still endearing to watch, regardless of its high predictability factor. If that’s not the sign of a well-made movie, I don’t know what is.

8/10