7 / 10
Official trailer
Friends with Benefits is one of two romantic comedies released in 2011 with the same premise.
Will Gluck directed it. Mila Kunis plays Jamie, a corporate headhunter who recruits Justin Timberlake’s Dylan to take a magazine job in New York. They become friends, then more than friends, with an explicit agreement that there’s no romance involved. Feelings develop, they fight, and they get together. Patricia Clarkson plays Jamie’s mother. Richard Jenkins plays Dylan’s father, who’s in the early stages of Alzheimer’s.
Woody Harrelson plays Tommy, Dylan’s gay coworker. The film made approximately one hundred and fifty million dollars worldwide on a thirty-five million dollar budget.
The other 2011 film with the same premise was No Strings Attached, directed by Ivan Reitman and starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. Both films are competent. Friends with Benefits is the better of the two, largely because the leads have stronger chemistry and the supporting cast is more developed.
Kunis and Timberlake make this a lot more fun than the premise deserves. The two of them are quick and loose together, and most of the film zips along with jokes that hit far more often than they miss. What holds it at a 7 for me is the last stretch, where a film that opens by mocking rom-com clichés runs through every one of them right on schedule.
The Self-Aware Setup
The film opens with both leads watching different bad romantic comedies and complaining about the genre. The script’s meta-awareness of its own conventions is the entire opening conceit.
The two leads agree that their physical relationship will avoid all rom-com tropes. The film then proceeds to deliver every rom-com trope the leads have rejected. The audience knows the leads will fall in love. The leads know they’ve agreed not to. The script lives in the gap between what they’ve agreed and what the audience knows will happen anyway.
The technique is risky, because lampshading your genre’s conventions can come across as too clever. The film mostly avoids that by playing the conventions sincerely when they arrive, and the third act is a plain rom-com climax where the leads say what rom-com leads say. I respect that it commits. I’d still have liked one real surprise in that last act, because after an opening this sharp, the straight run to the finish feels a little lazy to me.
For Writers
Meta-awareness of your genre’s conventions can hook the audience but can’t replace the conventions themselves. Friends with Benefits opens by mocking rom-com tropes and then delivers them anyway. The audience accepts this because the film does both halves of the bargain. The lesson is that you can acknowledge what you’re doing without subverting it. Self-awareness as garnish is fine. Self-awareness as the entire dish leaves the reader unfed.
Kunis and Timberlake
Mila Kunis was twenty-seven during filming. Justin Timberlake was thirty. Both performers had been working steadily and were at the level of recognized leading roles. Kunis brought the physical comedy. Timberlake brought the musical-comedy charm he had been developing on Saturday Night Live. The chemistry works because both leads commit to the bit. The opening agreement scene, in which they negotiate the terms of their physical relationship, is played as straight comedy by two actors who treat the absurd premise with suitable dryness.
Kunis is the one I’d watch this for. Her delivery in that negotiation scene is bone dry, and I laughed harder at it than at anything else in the film.
Justin Timberlake’s career as a film actor never developed the way his music career suggested it might, and I think Dylan is his best screen work. He plays him as a man whose professional ambition has outrun his emotional development, surprised when Jamie turns out to matter.
He calibrates the performance, and he never leans on being a pop star. I believe him completely, and this role makes me wish he’d been handed better scripts.
For Writers
A performer who lets the character carry the screen, instead of the celebrity, gives a stronger performance than one who imports their star persona. Justin Timberlake plays Dylan in Friends with Benefits without leaning on his musical fame. The role works because the audience sees Dylan, not Justin Timberlake playing Dylan. The lesson is that celebrity is usually a tax on character work. The audience has to forget who you are to believe who you’re playing. Get out of the way.
The Father Subplot
The strongest emotional material in the film is the Alzheimer’s subplot involving Dylan’s father, played by Richard Jenkins. The father is in early-stage decline. He recognizes Dylan most of the time. He forgets things selectively.
The scenes of Dylan visiting his father in California give the rom-com a weight the genre rarely carries. Jenkins is one of the better character actors of his generation and the scenes between him and Timberlake are some of the best non-comedic acting either performer has done.
The subplot does the structural work of explaining why Dylan has emotional walls. He’s watched his father lose memory of his marriage. He’s seen the cost of loving someone who’s going to disappear.
The film doesn’t state this connection in dialogue. It earns it through the parallel structure of the father subplot running underneath the central romance.
The Jenkins scenes are my favorite part of the movie. He plays the father’s lapses with such quiet grace that the comedy around them feels warmer for it, and I’d happily have traded some of the central romance for one more scene between him and Timberlake.
For Writers
A serious subplot running underneath a comedy can give the comedy weight without breaking the tone. Friends with Benefits keeps the Alzheimer’s material restrained. The film doesn’t become a drama. The serious material gives the comedic material ballast it wouldn’t otherwise have. The lesson is that tonal range comes from contrast instead of from blending. Keep the comedy and the drama in their own lanes. Let them inform each other instead of merging into beige.
Craft Note
The Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake hotel-pool sequence is the film’s central tonal pivot. The chemistry shifts from arrangement-comedy to actual romance across a four-minute scene without dialogue explaining the change. Romantic comedy depends on the actors communicating relationship state through specific physical adjustments. The shift is in the body language. The script just gives them somewhere to be.
Is Friends with Benefits worth watching?
7/10, and it’s a comfortable 7. It beats No Strings Attached, which had the same premise the same year, because Kunis and Timberlake spark and Richard Jenkins brings real weight. I’d rate it higher if the last act had the nerve of the opening, but it settles for the exact rom-com ending it spent its first scenes mocking. As a post-When-Harry-Met-Sally rom-com, it’s smart, funny and worth an evening.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Friends With Benefits: Rom-com done mostly right, The Globe and Mail
- Friends with Benefits (2011), The Numbers
- Friends with Benefits (2011), IMDb
