Sexe entre amis

Bien meilleur que Sex Friends, mais ce n'est toujours pas glorieux. Tout cela suit, du début à la fin, une formule déjà vue. Les personnages secondaires, parmi lesquels le parfait Woody Harrelson règne sans conteste, m'ont presque tous paru beaucoup plus sympathiques et crédibles que les protagonistes principaux. Ce gars est tout simplement divin. De plus, je m'attendais à quelque chose de plus drôle, même si la blague avec l'application mobile pour identifier les « jours des femmes » est parfaite. (23/09/2011)

Qui aurait dit en début d'année que le flirt non contraignant entre Mily et Justin serait plus spontané, plus sympathique et plus sincère que le flirt non contraignant entre Natalie et Ashton... (21/09/2011)

At the start of Friends with Benefits, director Will Gluck bids adieu to the protagonist of his “Hughes-ian” Easy A (a surprising cameo by Emma Stone), thus transitioning from an immature schoolgirl to adult characters who take sex as a natural part of life and a condition for their own contentment. I would highlight “their own”, but there are no feelings involved and the mere satisfying of physical needs is the reason why Dylan and Jamie end up in the same apartment and in the same bed. Unlike the protagonists of more conservative romantic comedies, they aren’t shy about openly saying what they want from each other. Long gone are the days when THAT, always hanging in the air, was never mentioned (the “Lubitsch touch”). With its wild pace during the first half, Friends with Benefits is nevertheless reminiscent of classic screwball comedies (including the nice work with contrasts both between the sexes and between New York and LA), though the filmmakers’ intention was probably to nostalgically recall the sexually guileless hippie era. Seemingly flown in from that era is the wacky mother played by Patricia Clarkson (who somewhat repeats herself; see Whatever Works), and the 1969 open-relationship comedy Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice runs on the television in Jamie’s apartment. The film’s ending is predictably far from being any kind of (sexual) revolution, but the likable actors get to it with their heads held high despite the aptly depicted, though shoddily constructed, relationship obstacles placed in their path. (I concede that they rather stumble toward the end.) Yes, even Justin Timberlake, whose acting I promise not to make fun of anymore. 75% (22/09/2011)

There is a little bit of life in there, and it's fluffed up by the skillful screenwriter into a very effective dialogue whirlwind. Unfortunately, at the end, the film is hurt by exactly what it had been making fun of for more than two-thirds of its runtime, i.e., the tired clichés of all romantic films far and wide. However, thanks to the great actors, it reminded me that even men have a delicate sensitive soul that can be touched sometimes. :) [The bad thing is that the only significant impression I have the day after watching it is Mila Kunis’ absolutely luxurious character.] (19/01/2012)

Will Gluck is pulling off a hat trick of excellent romantic comedies. He's not afraid of more vulgar words, daring scenes, and excellent pop culture references, and he nails it. At the moment, he's still at the top with a minus sign, but he already feels at home in the genre. He doesn't let up with the rhythm of jokes, and his romantic declarations come naturally to him (see the underrated Easy A). And when those jokes are salted with chemistry-infused dialogues performed perfectly by Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, audience satisfaction is at its peak. Despite being the least thematically distinctive work by Gluck, it paradoxically excels in technical aspects and pace. I also enjoy a weaker 90%. (25/09/2011)