|
No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
I liked Friends with Benefits quite a bit and saw it twice. I kinda fast-forwarded through No Strings Attached and may give it another chance someday. I tossed the TV show in there for the heck of it because of the same name and release year but don't expect it to get any votes.. I watched the free pilot and never wanted more. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hed_Poster.jpg No Strings Attached is a 2011 American romantic comedy film starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. The film is directed by Ivan Reitman and is about two friends, Emma (Portman) and Adam (Kutcher), who decide to make a pact to have "no strings attached" casual sex without falling in love with each other. The film was released in the United States and Canada on January 21, 2011. No Strings Attached is directed by Ivan Reitman based on a screenplay by Elizabeth Meriwether titled Friends With Benefits. The title was changed to avoid confusion with a different film with a similar premise that opened on July 22, 2011. Friends with Benefits is a 2011 American romantic comedy film directed by Will Gluck and starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. The film features a supporting cast which includes Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman, Bryan Greenberg, Nolan Gould, Richard Jenkins and Woody Harrelson. The plot revolves around Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis), who meet in New York City and naively believe adding sex to their friendship will not lead to complications. Over time they begin to develop deep mutual feelings for each other, only to deny it each time they are together. Paramount Pictures dropped its original protest against the film after their director, Ivan Reitman, re-titled his film No Strings Attached. Screen Gems then moved forward with the title Friends with Benefits. At the same time NBC was developing a sitcom with the same title, but the movie production company stated that due to its production schedule, they didn’t expect an issue to arise. Screen Gems chose to accelerate production for fear they would lose their title to the competing Paramount project. Director Will Gluck spoke about the frustration of comparing the two films, stating: "I wish there was more space between them. The thing that's irking me now is people are saying we're remaking No Strings Attached. We're not remaking it. The two movies were being made at the same time." Gluck, in an interview with the New Zealand Herald, said that Friends with Benefits was "very different to No Strings Attached". Similar sentiments were expressed by Kunis, opining, "It's just two different movies. There's only [...] so many stories you can tell in the world. This is just one of the many." Friends with Benefits is an American romantic sitcom created by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. It was originally set to air on NBC as a midseason replacement during the 2010–11 television season, but was ultimately delayed until August 5, 2011. The series ended on September 9, 2011, after airing twelve episodes with the thirteenth being only available on iTunes, Amazon.com and Netflix. |
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Friends with Benefits was surprisingly decent.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Both were better than I thought, but Portman > Kunis any day.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Friends with Benefits was far better than No Strings Attached
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
I actually would go with No Strings Attached. I was kind of surprised by it but I thought it was pretty decent. I generally don't care much for Kutcher and Portman is cute but I generally like Mila better and find her more attractive. Friends with Benefits isn't bad either but for some reason the film as a whole didn't click as well with me.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Friends with Benefits by far.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Friends with Benefits just for Woody Harrelson's character. I just think that
Spoiler:
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake were pretty awesome together with lots of chemistry, so I will go with Friends with Benefits.
Kutcher and Portman together didn't really work with me in No Strings Attached. I kind of hate the movie for even making me think of those two together. |
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Where's the cancer option?
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Strings
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
No Strings Attached had half naked Natalie Portman which gives it 99 points.
Friends with Benefits had half naked Mila Kunis which gives it 97 points. As movies: NSA was fucking awful and gets a 2 out of 10. Friends with Benefits was pretty damn funny and Kunis/Timberlake were great so it gets a 7 out of 10. So it's 101 to 104. Friends with Benefits wins. |
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Originally Posted by bunkaroo
(Post 11517192)
Both were better than I thought, but Portman > Kunis any day.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Originally Posted by onebyone
(Post 11517231)
Kutcher and Portman together didn't really work with me in No Strings Attached. I kind of hate the movie for even making me think of those two together.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
The correct answer is Black Swan, with Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. :drool:
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11517401)
Neither were particularly great but Kunis > Portman any day.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
With looks like Kunis', who needs acting? ;)
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Can't vote since I have no desire to see either one but I can cast a ghost vote at the one with Kunis since she's tons hotter than Portman :D
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
I liked No Strings and thought it actually had a decent (if not overused) storyline. While I like JT and MK, it was basically them humping over and over and thought it wasn't much of a story. No Strings by a long mile.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
i liked both, i admit it, but think i liked FwB a bit better.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni
(Post 11517427)
The correct answer is Black Swan, with Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. :drool:
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Neither are particularly good. No Strings Attached is probably the better movie, but Friends With Benefits is much more enjoyable.
And yes, the correct answer is Black Swan. |
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11517511)
With looks like Kunis', who needs acting? ;)
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
This is like asking if you'd rather have a poke in the eye, or a kick in the shins.
|
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
With looks like Kunis', who needs acting? with Kunis since she's tons hotter than Portman I'd throw Portman off the tallest bridge if it would guarantee me one date with Kunis. http://img163.imagevenue.com/loc379/..._122_379lo.jpg :lol: As for the movies, neither is worth watching, but if you are bound and determined to watch one, I'd advise Friends With Benefits. It will make you laugh more, and that counts for something. |
Re: No Strings Attached or Friends with Benefits?
Tough call but Natalie Portman > Mila Kunis if only slightly.
On the other hand Timberlake >>>> Kutcher. Still Portman is the deciding factor. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.