Friends with Benefits

A mainstream film career is about as stable as a Dubai skyscraper made out of Jenga bricks. Choosing the wrong script at the wrong time could result in a very narrow selection of offers that come into an agent’s office, which may or may not involve a commercial for a free credit report or STD medication. Inversely though, nailing that perfect role at just the right stage in a career can make selecting future projects like choosing a favorite flavor at Baskin Robins.

Justin Timberlake, would you like that in a cup or cone?

In the film Friends with Benefits, Dylan (Justin Timberlake, Bad Teacher, The Social Network) is a very talented art director for a small but high-traffic internet blog based in Los Angeles. Jamie (Mila Kunis, Black Swan, Forgetting Sarah Marshall) is a Fortune 500 headhunter trying to lure Dylan to New York for a position at GQ Magazine. As Jamie leads Dylan on an NYC seduction tour, they discover a mutual account of failure with past relationships. As their friendship thrives, they decide to add sex into the equation by removing all of the complicating factors that have previously plagued them, only to find out that life doesn’t take too kindly to simplicity.

This is the film that transforms Justin Timberlake from a musician who dabbles in acting to an actor who started out as a musician. Possibly stepping onto the yellow brick road leading to the great and powerful career of Will Smith, Timberlake shows he’s more than just a character actor and doesn’t need a Cup ’O Soup costume or a box strapped to his waist to be genuinely funny. As he’s shown time and time again, his complete lack of an inflated ego prevents even someone who has an “I hate Mickey Mouse Club boy band members who dated a pop star and got ‘Punked’ by Ashton Kutcher on national television” bumper sticker from disliking him. And as the story surprisingly develops a third dimension, Timberlake also gets to show off his previously established dramatic capabilities as well, this time adding in authentic transitions from funny to serious and back again in the same scene. Notoriously known as a perfectionist, a small drawback to Timberlake’s performance is that some scenes come off as a bit too rehearsed, which makes the dialogue sound more like it’s being remembered than created organically by the character. As he takes on more of these roles it would be advantageous for Timberlake to ever so slightly emulate more of a relaxed deadpan demeanor, a la Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Role Models)

Co-starring in the female lead is Mila Kunis who extends her acting range yet another notch with Jamie, a character who is once again very different from any of her previous roles. Kunis already had a substantial background in comedy well before this film from her sitcom days on That 70’s Show and The Family Guy. Her timing has honed over the years and the ability to be funny without a concrete punch line has enhanced. Most impressively though, she always manages to maintain what seems to be a resonance of herself throughout her characters and commands attention anytime she’s on screen with her undeniable beauty.

Not that they needed it, but backing up the two stars is a “Murderer’s Row” of a supporting cast. The film is peppered with great actors and six degrees of Timberlake and Kunis cameos that actually add more to the story than just familiar faces. Characters who in most films would be used as a simple plot device or background noise are actually thawed out and provide the story with deeper content. But the two that really stand out amongst the stacked lineup are Woody Harrelson (Zombieland) as Dylan’s GQ co-worker Tommy, and Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) as Dylan’s father, Mr. Harper.

No matter what genre of film he’s in, Harrelson ups the ante anytime he’s on screen. His abrasive character of Tommy takes a "liking" to Dylan as he spews out unwarranted relationship advice, leaving no thought unspoken. Harrelson has become the type of actor whose persona has the tendency to overshadow less experienced actors like Timberlake, but he’s also versed in how to dial it back and let the scene breathe when needed.

If Michael Jordan was a character actor, he’d be Richard Jenkins. One of the most universal and consummate father figures, Jenkins could take on the role of Chewbacca’s dad and make it believable. The scenes between Mr. Harper and Dylan are written with a heaping and profound amount of heart, and also tackle a subject matter that a zero percentage of moviegoers would expect to see in this film.

Another argument could be made that the two most important characters in the film are not even people at all. The cities of New York and Los Angeles and their Bizarro-world differences are just as much at the forefront of this film. Director and co-writer Will Gluck (Easy A) portrays the yin and yang of the cities very poignantly as the tone and even the pace of banter between characters adapts to their surrounding city. Gluck also delves bravely into some of the more awkward moments during Dylan’s and Jamie’s intimacies that do very little to bring sexy back, but absolutely do occur in most peoples’ everyday lives.

Exposed only to the trailer, one might reasonably think that Friends with Benefits is nothing more than a rom-com doppelganger of No Strings Attached. But as the story unfolds, it surprises the audience with its meaningful depth and original comedic scenarios. Also, the chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis develops naturally and at a pace that feels much more realistic than Portman and Kutcher in the aforementioned film. Simultaneously advantageous and dangerous for its genre, Friends with Benefits exemplifies just how satisfying a romantic comedy can be when the story is not cheap, flat and gratuitously aimed at only one gender.



Story: 8.0
Acting: 8.0
Writing: 8.0
Captivation: 8.0
Replay Value: 8.0

Total = 8.0 out of 10

Bad Teacher

In today’s media overdosed and jaded society, the shock value of uncensored material has definitely been diluted by sources like cable television and the Internet. However, the “R” film rating still holds some gravitas, especially when it comes to comedy. Back in the 1980’s the box office was inundated with these types of films, but as the quality decreased so did audiences appetite for them. 1998’s There’s Something About Mary is the film credited most with reinvigorating the genre, and over the past decade the R-rated comedy has made a strong comeback. However, anytime something makes a resurgence it’s bound to go through its ups and downs all over again. Since “Mary’s” genesis there have been highs like Wedding Crashers and The Hangover but also films like Miss March and Take Me Home Tonight, which died a quicker death than Michael Richards' stand-up career. Of course these are just the polar extremes, most of what is produced lies somewhere in between. For better or worse, this is the space where Cameron Diaz, the title actor from the ensemble cast of “Mary,” now finds her own R-rated comedy vehicle Bad Teacher, securely parked.

Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz, Knight and Day) is a public school teacher for all the wrong reasons. An amoral, selfish opportunist who is constantly looking to hook up with any ATM with a heartbeat so she can drop her job and live the “good life.” Just as she is about to get all her greedy heart’s desires, her rich fiancée wises up to her scheme and sends her packing back to her old life, pointed tail between her legs. Looking to once again coast through the school year, making everyday “movie day” in her class, she targets her intentions on Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake, The Social Network), a new substitute teacher with an incredibly rich family. Noticing Scott’s taste in women with ample sized chests, Elizabeth decides to get breast enhancement surgery to try to seal the deal. Completely broke, the scrupleless teacher uses her position to raise the money by any means necessary.

Bad Teacher is about as subtle as a text message from Anthony Weiner. The film really wants the audience to know that it’s rated “R” as soon as possible, falling flat in the beginning with jokes that use swear words as their only substance. It does manage to settle down a bit in the 2nd and 3rd acts where most of the comedic endeavors flourish. The film still suffers though throughout from a lack of transitional material and abrupt editing, feeling at times more like a string of sketches woven together. Some commendable child actors in the movie do manage to stand out but were used more to simply appease the plot instead of being an intricate part of it.

The writers, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (The Office), style is reminiscent of their very successful sitcom work, but as most TV writers who make the transition find out, it does not work seamlessly into a feature film. Hopefully these lessons will be learned well before the duo is finished with their next project, Ghostbusters III. Big brass stars are given out though for their unyielding portrayal of Elizabeth as an irredeemable character. She does manage to learn some small life lessons, but remains genuine to her crooked nature without any fairy tale epiphanies.

Diaz’s Elizabeth, like 99 percent of the characters in Bad Teacher, is an over the top, cliché characterization. But she rides it out and becomes more believable as the film progresses. As Diaz matures in her career, she seems to be fitting nicely into a stronger female lead instead of just the pretty-face supporting character, emitting rays of personality sunshine. One can see her eventually following in the footsteps of a blooming late career similar to that of Michelle Pfeiffer.

Justin Timberlake, riding the cult following he now has from his heralded hosting jobs on Saturday Night Live, takes his first shot at a role in a full-fledged comedy. Although it’s just a limited performance, Timberlake brings the same humility from his sketch comedy to the role of Scott Delacorte, able to change speeds from dashing and charming to weird and creepy in the blink of boy band. Timberlake actually looks more at home in his movie roles than he ever did in a music video. Although it remains to be seen if he can pilot a film by himself, he should have little problem making an acting career, comedy or otherwise, out of character parts like this.

Playing the antagonist “good” teacher to Diaz’s Elizabeth is Lucy Punch (Take Me Home Tonight) as Amy Squirrel. Even though Amy is a teacher who wants nothing more than to make a difference and educate her students, Punch does a wonderful job of eliciting a definite reaction of animosity toward her character right from her first appearance on screen. The unfortunate facet of Amy is that the script uses her as more of an annoyance instead of exploring some of the more humorous and interesting episodes that are only alluded to from her past.

Russell Gettis (Jason Segal, Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and Lynn Davies (Phyllis Smith, The Office) are the closest thing to reality anchors in the story. Segal does not take any monumental risks with his character of a P.E. teacher, inserting his usual lax demeanor and subliminal sarcasm. But in comedy this is not a detractor, as the rule is to stick with what works, and Segal has excelled in all of his comedic roles in film and television by pretty much just playing himself with slight personality tweaks. Smith also follows this mantra as she plays Lynn, a shyer and quirkier version of Smith’s character on The Office who’s so hard up for friends she’ll even take an exploiter like Elizabeth.

Ten years from now people are not going to be reminiscing or quoting lines from Bad Teacher. It’s never going to make anyone’s top-10 list but it shouldn’t make their bottom 10 either. Nor will the characters ever be bronzed as “classic.” But as an R-rated comedy, it does its primary job of using adult language and situations just well enough so it can underachieve and live up to the “C” student that it is.

Story: 5.5
Acting: 7.5
Writing: 6.0
Captivation: 6.5
Replay Value: 6.5

Total = 6.4 out of 10

Green Lantern

Over the past decade, the throne of the summer box office has no doubt been commandeered by the comic book genre. And as the till has risen from one premiere to the next, so has the eagerness of Hollywood studios to green light (pun unavoidable) feature films showcasing a deeper roster of characters. But along with that expansion also comes higher expectations from its core audience. Ever since the dawn of CGI, comic book fans have been clamoring for an FX heavy, live-action version of popular comic book hero The Green Lantern, but what would have been mind blowing as short as 5-10 years ago has already been rendered obsolete, thanks to films like The Dark Knight and Watchmen adding the caveat that character building and story now matter just as much as action and effects. Audiences have become spoiled and are now accustomed to expect at least a yeoman’s effort at a more sophisticated super hero film. Too bad for Green Lantern, its writers and director seem to long for the days of lowered expectations.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds, The Proposal, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) is a test fighter pilot growing up in his beloved father’s shadow. Witnessing his father’s death as a child, Jordan suppresses all inklings of fear and takes unnecessary chances with his life trying to prove his dominance over the emotion. One day after such an episode, he is suddenly transported to a crash site where a dying alien named Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison, Star Wars: Episode II, Episode III) tells him that he has been chosen to take his place among The Green Lantern Corps, a galactic protection agency that harnesses the green energy of will power from all living things in the universe. The alien bequeaths Jordan his power ring, which is capable of forming whatever constructs its wearer can imagine. Jordan must now learn to wield the ring and control his emotions as the greatest known enemy to The Corps, Parallax, continues its approach toward Earth, feeding on the yellow energy of fear.

Much like Marvel Studios recent attempt with Thor, Green Lantern is the most ambitious property of DC Comics that has been adapted into a feature film thus far. Plotlines involving characters that take the already fantastical notion of a super hero, and then expand the story away from Earth, become much more difficult to retain a sense of realism. Especially when the entire basis for Green Lantern’s abilities is that of the abstract idea of will power. This is the type of concept that usually attracts heavy reimagining in order to make the film more appealing to a broader audience. The writers certainly embodied the Lantern’s moniker of “no fear” by keeping to the source material on that issue. However, where they and director Martin Campbell (Edge of Darkness, Casino Royale) cower and hide, is by resigning to unnecessary humor and light heartedness which contributes nothing more than a transparent attempt to convey that the film is not taking itself too seriously.

The casting of Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan was heavily criticized during production of the film for that exact reason. Fans assumed that Green Lantern was going to be turned into Van Wilder with a power ring. While consummately perfect for another comic book property Reynolds is currently working on (Deadpool, 2014) fans of Green Lantern were filled with yellow energy on the thought that they’d get the same treatment for the more reserved Hal Jordan. And to some extent, they were right. This has become #1 on the “things not to do” list for making a modern comic book film. The hard-core fan base of this genre, which has proven to be a make or break factor, want these characters taken as seriously as possible. This is not to say humor should be banned, in fact, it’s absolutely necessary when dealing with such implausible components. However, when it’s used as filler and kills valuable screen time in a story that is already too big for its tights, it comes off as lazy. No one expects a story with emerald cops who patrol the galaxy with power rings and recite a cheesy oath to be as heavy as Christopher Nolan’s Batman, but at the very least it should have emulated more of an Empire Strikes Back quality and less of Attack of the Clones.

Reynolds’ performance is not without its merit though. Some moments of levity that were not so obviously contrived worked very well, and the role of a super hero is certainly agreeable with both his physical and emotional attributes. Reynolds has already proven that he is undoubtedly capable of a subdued comedic performance in films like Adventureland and The Nines. And he does get to exemplify Hal Jordan as the stoic man suppressing his fear for much of the film, but sadly the writers always felt the need to insert cheap laughs where they were not needed.

The only other notable performance in this film is that of Mark Strong (Kick Ass, Sherlock Holmes) as The Green Lantern Corps’ leader Sinestro. Even though his screen time was much too short and his character development was lodged in fast forward mode, Strong embodies the exact demeanor and arrogance needed for the character and gives fans a strong incentive to see Sinestro’s story arc come to fruition in a possible sequel.

The supporting cast in Green Lantern is about as useful as a power ring against an evil Big Bird. Jordan’s love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, Gossip Girl, The Town) has almost zero chemistry with Reynolds’ character, but to be fair the backstory of Hal Jordan was never something that set the comic world on fire either. Jordan’s personal life does not have the interest or complexity of Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker. Instead of trying to crowbar in already flimsy material, there should had been more of a focus on the relationship and rivalry between Jordan and Sinestro, of which the script barely scratched the surface.

Peter Sarsgaard (Knight and Day, Jarhead) plays Hector Hammond who serves as the main human antagonist in the film. Sarsgaard is a fine actor, and he is actually very good in this role, but the character is so completely uninteresting and stereotypical that he serves no real purpose other than to make Green Lantern use his powers. The script wastes more time trying to convey some sort of childhood rivalry that existed between Jordan and Hammond for Carol’s heart but never holds any merit since the underlying layers of their history are so unthawed.

Tim Robbins (The Shawshank Redemption) is in this film for no other reason than name recognition. The role of Senator Hammond, the disapproving father of Hector, is a complete waste of time for one of the finest actors alive, as he tries to provide some kind of fuel for Hector’s tired and cliché resentment of society.

Where Green Lantern definitely does not disappoint is in the special effect area. Action sequences are very entertaining. The continuing evolution in CGI brings the universe and powers of Green Lantern to life in a way that no other process could. The computer generated suit looks fantastic and beats out any real-world material that could have been woven together, plus since Green Lantern’s power comes from pure energy it even makes more sense that his costume exemplifies that trait. The Corps’ home world of Oa is also very awe inspiring, which include The Guardians, who first harnessed the power of the lanterns and created The Corps.

Green Lantern gets credit for taking a stab at some very expansive source material but sells itself short with a truncated script that is more reminiscent of a feature-length cartoon. Ten years ago this film could have gotten away on face-melting special effects alone, but as the genre has upped the ante with the depth of its characters and stories, this CliffsNotes version of the property does very little to exemplify humans as the highly imaginative beings in the story who are worthy of Green Lantern’s light.



Story: 7.0
Acting: 6.5
Writing: 6.5
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 7.5

Total = 6.9 out of 10

X-Men: First Class

From the biblical days of Cain and Abel all the way to the space opera of Obi-wan and Anakin, the tale of two brothers, by blood or otherwise, whose moral paths eventually collide at an impasse is one that never seems to tire. Usually there are some telltale signs throughout such a story that will start to lightly sketch the divisional lines of who will take their rightful places in either the yin or the yang. All of these factors contribute to the story of X-Men patriarchs Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, but even though that clear separation exists between who is the hero and who is the villain, X-Men: First Class bolsters what sets their dynamic apart from all others.

The fifth chapter and the second prequel in the X-Men franchise focuses on the dawn of the superhero team and its creators Charles Xavier aka Professor X (James McAvoy, Wanted) and Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Inglorious Basterds). The potent genetic material that keeps the X-Men story evolving continues to be the disparity in ideology between these two characters and how they mirror the very real issues in American history. As alluded to in the opening scene of the original X-Men, the childhood of young Erik in the Nazi concentration camps reveals his experience of the travesties during the Holocaust of WWII. Meanwhile his counterpart Charles grows up in a lonely mansion and discovers at a very young age that he is not the only one in the world with unique abilities. As Erik seeks revenge on the Nazis and Charles continues to educate the world on mutation, their paths cross as they converge on a very powerful mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon, Super) whose ultimate goal is to start WWIII. Charles and Erik team up and track down other mutants to form a resistance against Shaw and his allies, creating the first incarnation of the X-Men.

Much like Watchmen, the story of X-Men: First Class is woven nicely into real-world events of the past. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 gives the story more of consequential weight, which other comic book films can sometimes lack. Director and co-writer Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) uses this setting to skew the comprehensive tone apart from the other chapters in the franchise. Additionally, since this film reveals mutants to the mass population of humans for the first time, it was important that the shock be more genuine than previously represented. Vaughn’s concern for this is represented well in the film, but not to the point were it wastes time or detracts from the central story.

Amplifying the great script is the tailored suit-like performances of the actors. At the head of the “first class” is Michael Fassbender portraying Erik Lehnsherr as he travels down his path toward becoming the powerful Magneto. Much like his role in Inglorious Basterds, Fassbender seems to have a knack for characters of this time period. His presence and coolness is a throwback to the Sean Connery era of filmmaking. Most impressive though, is how Fassbender hones in on the perfect pitch called for by the script. Considering his experiences with genocide, Erik’s ambition to eventually bring humanity to its knees could actually be deduced as logical. Fassbender emulates a sense of reason and empathy that is extremely rare to antagonists and even alters the way Magneto’s dialogue is conceived in previous films.

Representing the Martin Luther King Jr. to Fassbender’s Malcolm X is James McAvoy as Charles Xavier. This film presents McAvoy with the opportunity to introduce a more hip and slightly less benevolent Professor X in his younger days. McAvoy certainly nails Xavier’s extraordinary intellect and honorable sensibilities while exhibiting a more flawed and human side of a man in his twenties trying to discover who he is and realize his true path in life.

Kevin Bacon dusts off his black hat as brazen villain Sebastian Shaw, a mutant with a seemingly unstoppable ability. Bacon has filled the role of “bad guy” many times in his career and once again emits an eerie sense of calm fear when his character is on screen. Along with that comes a smug arrogance, which is always reinforced by the notion that he’ll make good on every threat.

The rest of the large cast of heroes and villains in X-Men: First Class has no legitimate weak spots, but there is one performance worthy of a spotlight. Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy) as Dr. Hank McCoy engages in a traumatic transformation into his alias of Beast. Beast is a very strong and confident hero, everything the meek Dr. McCoy is not. Even as Beast though, Hoult maintains the purity of the slight doctor who can finally accept himself for who and what he is.

Due to the nature of their function, most prequels are not classified as the best chapter in an extensive franchise. The character’s ultimate destinies are already known, so sudden plot twists or surprises that still fit into the canon become difficult to accomplish. And even though there were some inconsistencies with timelines from other chapters, X-Men: First Class may be that exception as it attacks and scrutinizes the layers of the most interesting facet of the X-Men saga . . . can humanity really be trusted to make the right decision, or is it more logical to force an illogical species to do so?


Story: 8.5
Acting: 8.5
Writing: 8.0
Captivation: 8.0
Replay Value: 8.5

Total = 8.3 out of 10

The Hangover Part II

It's hard enough to churn out successful sequels to action, drama or sci-fi films , but comedic follow-ups are easily the most difficult to accomplish. The miniscule amount of franchises in the comedy realm is a testament to the rarity of such films reaching blockbuster status. Unlike the other genres, comedies have a much lower replay value. Tell the same joke to the same people in a relatively short amount time and it gets stale faster than a loaf of bread during Passover Seder. Sure, a great joke can be timeless, just as long as there is at least one set of virgin ears in the group to facilitate the punch line’s impact. Unfortunately for The Hangover Part II, its predecessor left no such pair of ears unscaved.

It’s happened again! The wolfpack has found themselves in a blacked out stupor with not a fathom of what’s happened the night before and only 2 days before one of their member’s wedding. This time around it’s Stu (Ed Helms, The Hangover, The Office) who’s getting hitched and the location has changed from Vegas to Thailand. Also, instead of losing their buddy Doug (Justin Bartha, The Hangover, National Treasure), who is safe and secure at the wedding venue, they have misplaced the innocent and shy 16-year-old brother of Stu’s fiancée somewhere in the depths of Bangkok.

The Hangover’s success was due to the very relatable experience of a night of debochery that ensues during a bachelor party. But what really forced the needle to fly right off the hilarity meter was the amped up and over-the-top level of absurdness that few bachelor parties could ever hope to attain. Rather than focusing on the most interesting and humorous factor of how such madness could transpire all over again, The Hangover Part II’s script is simply a Mad Libs version of the original. The sequel is expected to keep the same premise that jolted the careers of its stars, but the story was starved for originality. The new writers on this film, which includes director Todd Phillips (The Hangover, Old School), should have looked to the benchmark set by the National Lampoon’s Vacation series. It too kept a very similar premise throughout the franchise, however more than just the scenery was changed from chapter to chapter. The scenarios were each original to their perspective stories but remained embedded with the familiar and beloved traits of the main characters. Instead of tyring to exceed or even differentiate The Hangover Part II from Jon Lucas’ and Scott Moore’s original magnum opus, the writers simply rested on past laurels.

The only gas in the tank of this film is the effort of the great characters who all return for a second go around. Zach Galifianakis (Due Date, The Hangover) remains the top idiot of idiot savants in the role of Alan, however this time there was less savant and too much aggression added to his social awkwardness. The same proportion goes for Ed Helms’ Stu as his freak out sessions click up a few notches, but both actors are able to maintain the overall familiar tone of their characters for most of the film. Bradley Cooper’s (Limitless, The Hangover) position as the wolfpack’s amoral alpha glue, Phil, is perhaps simultaneously the most underrated and disappointing. Cooper excels as the psuedo narrator for the outlandish circumstances surrounding the trio as Phil keeps the wolfpack grounded and together while always managing to have a little fun of his own as they try to piece together their memories. Unfortunately Phil’s backstory is once again mostly ignored and he remains the most underdeveloped character in the story.

Stand out supporting roles include the returning Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) as Mr. Chow and Paul Giamatti (Win Win, John Adams) as supposed crime lord Kingsley. These would have been great complementary pieces in a more original plot, but instead they are used as mere distractions from a poor doppelganger.

The Hangover Part II is little more than a contact high of its precursor and although some of the mirrored scenes from the original do manage to slip in small, unexpected turns that elicit a few belly laughs, the film equates to a stand-up comedian that only gets half way through the first joke before hearing a heckler shout, “I’ve heard this one already.”

Story: 5.5
Acting: 6.5
Writing: 7.0
Captivation: 6.5
Replay Value: 6.5

Total = 6.4 out of 10