Casual Sex

In today's liberal minded times, sex is advertised everywhere. It fuels the music industry. It is used to promote products. It's even hidden away in kids' shows. But yet, the movies tell us it always turns into love. There is no such thing as casual sex. No Strings Attached, starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher challenged this idea but in all honesty, the trailer suggested this was never going to ring true. So along came a rival. Almost surreal as it stars Natalie Portman's co-star from Black Swan, this movie looked at the exact same concept. Its trailer is far more amusing but still hints that relationships really are as black and white as they seem. Let's take a look at Friends With Benefits.

Dylan Harper (Justin Timberlake) is an art director for a small internet company in LA. One day, head hunter Jamie Rellis (Mila Kunis) tries to recruit Dylan for GQ magazine in New York. After an interview with GQ, Dylan is hesitant to take the job and so Jamie takes him for a tour of New York to convince him that it is worth the jump. Dylan finally accepts the job and, knowing no one in New York, strikes up a friendship with Jamie. They begin to hang out together and become best friends. One night, while watching a rom-com (starring Jason Segel), they come onto the conversation of sex and relationships. They both agree that sex can be nothing more then physical intimacy without feelings getting in the way. With this fresh in their minds, they make a deal: to have sex with one another, and not get attached. Despite everyone telling them that this is a bad idea - Dylan's gay co-worker, Tommy (Woody Harrelson), Jamie's mum, Lorna (Patricia Clarkson), Dylan's sister, Annie (Jenna Elfman) - they continue on with it. A simple rom-com without the romance right?

'Hands up if you would sleep with one of these two.'

A pretty perfect comedy crew. Not only is this a funny cast, it also has a few solid actors. Mila Kunis and Woody Harrelson are both outstanding actors. Justin Timberlake is also a good actor as we discovered with The Social Network but he fits so well in comedies. He's perfect for the role of Dylan. He is confident but also careful. He's hesitant to take risks but yet he knows he's good at what he does. Plus his beautiful voice comes in handy a couple of times. My only issue is his extremely exaggerated stutter when he is scared but there's no trace of it anywhere else. Mila Kunis, who men will droll over throughout the movie, does a good job against Timberlake. She's not as funny, though she does have some of the best lines, but she's a spot on partner for Dylan. She's got control and she knows what she wants. She's enough to put Dylan in his place. All this being said, Richard Jenkins stood out for me. Playing Mr. Harper, Dylan's father who suffers from early stages of Alzheimer's disease, he creates really touching scenes in what is essentially an extremely shallow, yet funny, film.

'How are you even doing that?!?!'

Admittedly, a second class follow up for Will Gluck after his previous comedy, Easy A, but still a good film. It's got a wicked soundtrack and some real laughs (and maybe you'll be on the edge of tears at two or three points. I was.) You'll end up quoting it back and forward, hopefully not always in the same context as in the movie. I do recommend singing closing time to your partner, but not shouting, 'What are you try'na do? Dig your way to China?' in an intimate moment. My biggest issue with the movie is, despite setting out to make a film that does not involve love and is just sex, it piles on the clichés in the latter half of the movie. Gently at first and then they rain from the cinematic sky like a monsoon.

A good laugh and one that everyone (above a certain age) can enjoy. It's not a chick flick, it's a sex flick. Also fun cameos from all your favourites like Emma Stone and Andy Samberg.

Best Bit? Honestly, the first sex scene. Not for the obvious reasons either. I find the interaction hilarious.

Facebook.

If movies could win Best Picture on their ability to tune into a zeitgeist alone, films such as Twilight and Harry Potter would leave the Oscar's very pleased. But they didn't. When a film manages to dissolve a zeitgeist and shows every aspect of it from the nerdy to the awesome, we get something special. So here we have a movie for the internet age. A movie made for everyone who has used a particular website. Anyone who has used The Social Network.


Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to be cool. After being dumped and a host of blog posts later, he creates a website known as Face Mash. It turns out to be a hit and crashes Harvard's servers. This serves as insperation. It also catches the attention of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (Josh Pence and Armie Hammer respectively) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) who wish Mark to work on their new site, Harvard Connection. A social network site exclusively for Harvard students. More insperation. Mark builds on this idea with his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garefield) and they create 'Thefacebook.' Believing that their idea was stolen, the Winklevoss twins (or Winklevii) begin taking action, first as 'Harvard Gentlemen' and then they take legal action. Court case number 1. As Facebook grows, now outside of Harvard, Mark and Eduardo begin to drift apart especially when Sean Parker (Justin Timbelake) gets involved. Slowly, Eduardo is pushed out of Facebook and, after his name is removed as co-creator, he takes legal action of his own. Court case number 2. Poor Mark. He never even wanted a profit. He just wanted to be cool.

As the world's youngest billionaire, Mark decided he'd try out his 'early retirement look.'

The film blends perfectly from the 'present day' court cases to the past and history of the famous website. But more on that later. For now, the performances. Only one nominated. Jesse Eisenberg is up for the Best Actor gong but does he deserve it? In a weaker year he may stand a better chance. While his turn as the world's youngest billionaire may, if you're like me, become one of your favourite on screen personas, he lacks something that the other nominated actors have. However, it's still a brilliant show. The fast talking character is a brilliant hybrid of arrogance and self consciousness. His sarcasm and wit give the movie pace and a a level of intelligent humor that so many films lack nowadays. Both Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake throw in brilliant supporting performances. Garfield excels as the angry, hurt and probably very jealous best friend. When you consider how close Eisenberg and Garfield are, their dramatic and tension filled, onscreen relationship becomes all the more impressive. Also, if you're not one to think of Timberlake as a serious actor, prepare to be proved wrong. As the super cool Sean Parker, he shows how awesome the world of nerdy computer logistics can be starting with the simple suggestion of one billion dollars.

When one of my favourite directors is behind a film, you can be assured that it'll be a damn good movie. So from the man who made Fight Club and Se7en, what can we expect? Something excellent. That's what. David Fincher provides another excellent film and his most contemporary to date. Before he's dabbled in horror, (Se7en) Dark comedy and thriller (Fight Club) and psychological thriller (the Game) but yet here we are with the always exciting concept of... The Internet! But seriously, this character drama is truly brilliant and it's probably likely to be down to David Fincher's perfectionism. The opening scene alone took 99 takes. Fincher certainly deserves an Oscar. Maybe not for this film but it's now a famous quote that, 'the right people win Oscars for the wrong films.' If Fight Club and Se7en didn't win, surely it's about time Fincher was recognised. We don't want another Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock do we?

At Harvard, even the writing paper is glass.

The techno score may not be for all but it suits the technological subject matter that the whole movie is based around. But being modern and techno it may not appeal to a lot of Oscar voters out there but the mixing is excellent. (Oscar perhaps?) The cinematography is good but I wouldn't say it's to the standard of, Inception, Kings Speech or True Grit (Review coming soon) so probably not likely to get the Oscar there. The editing, however is a different matter. As already mentioned, the film easily blends from one time zone to another. Often it manages it perfectly within a conversation. My vote is certainly between The Kings Speech and this for the editing Oscar. The editing Oscar is a famous sign of a best picture winner... Coincidence?

A really excellent film. Funny, emotional and exciting. The characters are compelling and the dialogue is pacy. It has everything a Best Picture winner needs: brains, strong characters, emotion, humour and, of course, an I-can -overcome-all-obstacles story - though not a traditional one. It's such a difficult year to pick a winner. Predictions coming soon. But for the meantime, see this.

Best bit? The sarcasm. The movie drips sarcasm. See below for David Fincher's favourite example.

Gretchen: 18,000 dollars?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Gretchen: In addition to the $1,000 you'd already put up?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Gretchen: A total of $19,000 now?
Eduardo Saverin: Yes.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hang on. [Mark sarcastically adds up the 2 amounts on his notepad]
Mark Zuckerberg: I'm just checking your math on that. Yes, I got the same thing.