web
counter
 

It Could Have Used a Few Strings

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (57)



no_strings_attached_nn_kutcher.jpg

I’ll say this for No Strings Attached, it’s not as bad as When in Rome. Granted, there are dental operations done without anesthesia that aren’t as bad as When in Rome, so it’s not a major step up.

Ashton Kutcher plays Adam, the son of an aging television star who hates his father and wants to be a writer. “Be a writer” means that he works as a gopher on a “Glee” rip off and wrote a single script for an episode before the film starts. I emphasize that this was before the film to make sure you don’t come away with the impression that the character actually does anything throughout the entire course of the movie, because that would be misleading.

Natalie Portman plays Emma, a doctor still in residency. She has daddy issues too and is thus afraid of commitment and unwilling to fall in love or even have a steady relationship. And since the work schedule of a doctor makes it difficult to find time to find one’s way home from strangers’ beds, she lights upon the much simpler idea of just sleeping with her lifelong friend Adam instead. The deal is struck that they should do so with no strings attached. Get it? It’s the title!

That’s the set up and then the rest of the film follows exactly the script outline that we all can write in our sleep. There’s the wacky friends, the montage, he falls in love, she freaks out and breaks it off, 6 weeks pass on a title card, she realizes she loves him too, happily ever fucking after. Do we really have to see this movie made over and over again every other week, and did we really expect it to be anything better than it is? It’s a middling comedy that has no idea what it wants to be but is certainly neither as witty or emotionally driven as it clearly thinks it is.

Perhaps the only thing of note in the movie is the fact that all of its presumed weakness and strengths are inverted. The wacky side characters that are abysmally obnoxious and boring in all of these films? They’re the best part of the movie. Mindy Kaling and Ludacris stole most of the scenes they were in, and a film based on their characters would seem far more interesting than the one we got focused on Kutcher and Portman. On the other hand, they brought in Kevin Kline to play Adam’s wacky father, which seems like it would be a high point. Instead each arrival of Kline on screen was a signal: it meant that for the next five minutes you’d hear jokes you’d already heard on sitcoms ten years ago so you could zone out even more. Ha! He’s old but he’s smoking marijuana! Ha! He’s dating his son’s ex-girlfriend! Ha ha ha! Come on Reitman, you’re the guy who brought us Stripes, get it together.

Kutcher tones his obnoxious jackassery down to a low simmer, and plays the role as a nice sweet goofball, with the smugness and smirk packed away for the most part. That is to say, he’s passable. Portman is not, which is more the fault of the writing than the acting. She’s got a mound of roles that show she can bring the dark and the crazy to a role, but there’s just no depth to the character of Emma. She’s a doctor with commitment issues. That’s it. Nothing else. Two hours of film and we know nothing else about her, other than the fact that she likes to sleep with Adam. The entire motivation for the character’s actions are that she is screwed up, but we are not shown any way that she actually is screwed up. We learn more about corpses before the first commercial in most episodes of “Law and Order” than we ever do about Emma.

I am tired of movies that apparently define falling in love as fucking a bunch in a montage. That’s not love. That’s sex. It’s especially egregious in a film that by design is supposed to be about that boundary. We can get a glimpse at the explanation for this from Ivan Reitman, who directed and produced the film, and he had this lovely nugget to sum up his approach: “I noticed from my own kids that with this generation in particular, young people find it easier to have a sexual relationship than an emotional one. That is how the sexes deal with each other today.” It’s truly amazing how the Baby Boomers can completely invent sex from scratch and then forty years later manage the stunning discovery via their grandchildren that young people have sex. Bravo.

The iron law of storytelling is show, don’t tell. We never see this couple fall in love. We see them have sex and then we see one of them say he’s in love. Reitman seems incapable of understanding that one doesn’t implicitly lead to another. It’s Friday evening right now, and millions of single (or not, as the case may be) Americans are heading out to bars at which many will manage to have sex. Most of them probably aren’t going to fall in love with each other. Thems the breaks. And if you’re going to tell a story about the exception, maybe you should try actually telling a story instead of stringing together montages and recycled jokes.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Way Back Review | It's A Long Hard Road Out of Hell | Cold Magic by Kate Elliott









Comments

No Strings Attached, for the woman who prefers pads over tampons.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 21, 2011 7:01 PM

I was actually looking forward to the review of this film only because I knew it would suck. The film, not the review. And I was pleased to see it was SLW stuck with the job. I'm sad you had to sit through this but I love reading your reviews!

Posted by: pickled tink at January 21, 2011 7:02 PM

DAMMIT, SLW, DOES SHE GET GRATUITOUSLY NAKED OR NOT

Posted by: WhiskeyClown at January 21, 2011 7:04 PM

I want to see a romantic comedy that follows all the rules up until the break-up. Then the guy loses his mind from the rejection and he goes on a shooting spree and a cop kills him. The woman ends up on the Today show to talk about him and ends up marrying Al Roker. Nine months later, Al Roker gives birth to a beautiful baby girl named Al Roker, and the cycle begins again.

Posted by: Lucas at January 21, 2011 7:05 PM

That one Seinfeld episode?

Posted by: Theseus at January 21, 2011 7:05 PM

Movies that contain montages are, by definition, made of suck (with a couple notable exceptions, but that doesn't make it right). I wasn't planning to see this anyway, as I abhor rom com in general and Ashton Kutcher in particular, but the inclusion of montages means I likely won't even rent it.

Posted by: Reba at January 21, 2011 7:06 PM

Nicely written, SLW. At least, you've managed to capture my angst toward the whole romcom genre beautifully.

Also, apropos of nothing, this quote from A.O. Scott's review on the film in the NYT made me laugh really hard:

"Ms. Portman can now claim what appears to be a unique distinction: She may be the only Golden Globe-winning actress to simulate sex on screen with two former members of the cast of 'That ’70s Show.'"

Posted by: Rob at January 21, 2011 7:28 PM

Oh Natalie, I love you. But what the hell are you doing?

Posted by: Lemon Poundcake at January 21, 2011 7:28 PM

I was so disappointed with Natalie Portman when I saw the trailer for this movie for two reasons: one that she would do a cheesy, cliche romantic comedy that we all know the ending to and two, that she would star opposite Ashton Kutcher in it.

Posted by: jenny at January 21, 2011 7:38 PM

Oh, Mindy Kaling. Why didn't you write this? I love you and I bet you could write something than this dreck in your sleep. And you wouldn't cast fucktard Kutcher. You'd get your awesome buddy John Krasinski, who is equally tall and about a million times less obnoxious, and then I'd want to watch it.

As it is, everything about this movie makes me angry. To quote Scott Pilgrim: If this movie had a face, I would punch it.

Posted by: Figgy "Bagels" Firehawk at January 21, 2011 7:41 PM

I hate this film so much that I'd rethink a relationship with someone who likes it. It's the classic example of the impending doom of modern American cinema.

And to every reviewer I've read, elsewhere, who has praised this film for showing Natalie Portman having sex. Get some porn.

Posted by: SittingPat at January 21, 2011 8:02 PM

"It Could Have Used a Few Strings"?

More like a rope.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 21, 2011 8:21 PM

Aww Figgy, why'd you have to go and suggest John Krasinski? Now I'm wishing the trailer I've seen a million times had starred Jim (because it wouldn't actually change the fact that I'll never watch this movie, but at least I could have enjoyed those 60 seconds a hell of a lot more)!

Damnit.

Posted by: Parker at January 21, 2011 8:24 PM

I think that picture calls for a caption contests.

My offering:

Ashton Kutcher seen here offering Natalie Portman a bushel of orange dildos while apologizing for ruining her Oscar chances.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 21, 2011 8:27 PM

"Portman is not, which is more the fault of the writing than the acting."

Oh, bullshit.

Posted by: Samantha T at January 21, 2011 8:27 PM

Y'all just got punk'd.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at January 21, 2011 8:37 PM

Bierce, I'm thoroughly convinced that Kutcher and everyone that has ever hired him is going to jump out one day and say exactly that about his entire career.

Posted by: Paultera at January 21, 2011 9:23 PM

Amen, Samantha T.

Why We Hate: Natalie Portman (Do it, Courtney, please!!)

"It Could Have Used a Few Strings"?

More like a rope.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 21, 2011 8:21 PM

More like a lifeline.


Posted by: denesteak at January 21, 2011 9:27 PM

Natalie Portman strikes me as an actress who is only as good as her director. You know there are some actors who are so awesome that they can elevate a scene no matter how craptacular the movie might be? I don't think she's one. Sir Ian McKellan can make scenes in the most painful movies (I'm looking at you, X-Men 3) tolerable because he's SIR IAN FREAKIN' MCKELLAN. But Portman, left to her own devices, gets lost.

Posted by: luthien26 at January 21, 2011 9:45 PM

One word: PUKE. Would not watch this tripe for $1,000...seriously.

Posted by: TrickyHD at January 21, 2011 9:58 PM

How does Ashton Kutcher continue to get work? Even those stupid commercials annoy the living fuck out of me.

Posted by: Uncle JR at January 21, 2011 10:01 PM

On another note, 38 minutes into "Monsters", a nice Sci-Fi movie, and loving it. It is like Catnip, I am loving this movie...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/

Posted by: TrickyHD at January 21, 2011 10:03 PM

denesteak, a lifeline is the opposite of what I was thinking, a rope to hang kutcher's movie career once and for all.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 21, 2011 10:17 PM

I basically want to kill Natalie Portman at this point. She is TERRIBLE. CAN WE STOP PRETENDING SHE HAS BEEN GOOD IN ANYTHING BUT LEON? Jesus christ! She blabbed on and on about how this movie is different and she wants to make different movies for women, yet she acts like a slut in all her movies and this is just a typical romcom? SHUTUP.

Posted by: stump at January 21, 2011 10:50 PM

We talk about Rob Reiner's career fall from quality into shlock and forget that Reitman directed Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Twins and Kindergarden Cop. His last good movie was Dave in 1993.

What happened to him? Junior. Six Days, Seven Nights. My Super Ex-Girlfriend. And now this??

The best thing that's happened to him in the last 10 years is his kid doing Up in the Air.

So while I expected nothing from Kutcher and am surprised Natalie Portman got involved with this, I am not surprised that this is schlock.

Posted by: Fredo at January 21, 2011 11:38 PM

I guarantee you this review was one hundred thousand times more interesting, clever and entertaining than the film it's about. Thank you SLW.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at January 22, 2011 12:47 AM

I basically want to kill Natalie Portman at this point...She blabbed on and on about how this movie is different and she wants to make different movies for women, yet she acts like a slut in all her movies and this is just a typical romcom?
stump's got a point. The thing that ruined Attack of the Clones wasn't the shitty writing, unimaginative cinematography, horrible direction, abuse of CGI and greenscreen technology, or complete failure on the part of everyone involved to create compelling characters.
It was Amidala's costume design. And nipples.
And the interspecies gangbang. That took me right out of the action.

Posted by: Jim Doggie at January 22, 2011 1:01 AM

I love my daughter, but at 14, she loves a lot of crap ("Eat, Pray, Love" is a favorite, and she's desperate to see "Country Strong") - even she thinks this movie looks irredeemably awful. It will bomb, awfully. When you've lost the 14-year-old rom-com fanatic, you've lost it all.

Great review. I'm reminded of a Letterman interview with Julia Roberts, eons ago, when she was promoting "I Love Trouble," in which she & Nick Nolte play competing reporters. As soon as she started to describe the storyline, Dave said "And yet, they fall in love!" She kept protesting, and talking about how different these two characters were - he was the old school by-the-books reporter, she was the scatterbrained, new young reporter - and Dave kept intoning "and yet, they fall in love!" Finally, Julia asked him if he'd somehow already seen the movie. "No," he deadpanned, "I just have a good head for plot."

I think of that whenever one of these painfully obvious paint-by-numbers films comes along. "And yet, they fall in love."

Posted by: Edith at January 22, 2011 2:21 AM

Wait a second. So this movie that stars Ashton Kutcher sucks?

Thanks for the info!

Posted by: Craig at January 22, 2011 3:10 AM


Wait.. they have sex and THEN he falls in love? OBVIOUSLY ridiculous claptrap. That ain't love, baby. Friend Fucker FAIL!

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at January 22, 2011 3:53 AM

On another note, 38 minutes into "Monsters", a nice Sci-Fi movie, and loving it. It is like Catnip, I am loving this movie...
Posted by: TrickyHD at January 21, 2011 10:03 PM

Loving it so much, you stopped half way through to surf the internet instead?
I tend to watch good movies all the way through. Guess I must be old school...

Posted by: Simon at January 22, 2011 7:11 AM

The more puzzling aspect of this movie is, Mila Kunis is in a movie called "Friends With Benefits" (not yet released)that, I shit you not, has seemingly the EXACT SAME PLOT. In fact, imdb shows the working title for "No Strings Attached" was...."Friends With Benefits".

I'm so confused. I don't know the timeline or how these Hollywood type things work, but how did they not get together at some point during "Black Swan" and through some turn in conversation, realize they were to be working on movies with the same retarded, simplistic premise? Double abomination!

Posted by: millsie at January 22, 2011 8:29 AM

@TrickyHD : Monsters was brilliant. Gareth Edwards was rewarded by recently being signed to direct the next US Godzilla film. No idea if it's a reimaginebootaquel, but I'm jazzed to see what Edwards can do in his sophomore effort.

Ditto for Duncan Jones' Source Code, seeing as how Moon was amazing.

Posted by: Markus at January 22, 2011 10:39 AM

@millsie: Another case of movie ideas coming in twos. This is the same phenomenon that kept me from watching Dangerous Liasons and Valmont simultaneously, probably. I'm not always sure, I got chased through a lot of time tunnels in the late '80s.

@stump: let's hold hands. I live in Canada, so the windchill freezes the hand germs for your safety and pleasure. I think we're all set to go. On second thought, I don't see where all of the Portman dislike comes from, I mean, she is our better. That's just science. On third thought, any whore can get a Bachelor's degree--they gave me two and I only showed up to that particular farmer's market with the hope of successfully exchanging some gently-used poutine for a half-dozen or so flash cubes. Sucked face with half the cast of That Risible Show, how does it feel?

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at January 22, 2011 1:07 PM

"... millions of single (or not, as the case may be) Americans are heading out to bars at which many will manage to have sex."

WHERE ARE THESE MAGICAL BARS?!

Posted by: 1qtp2t at January 22, 2011 5:14 PM

On-the-money review, although it's unfortunate the writer has bought into the current notion that Natalie Portman can do no wrong so, if she sucks, it's someone else's fault. Her great feature is that she comes across as a teenage girl with the face of a very beautiful woman. One thing about great-looking people is that their failings are blissfully overlooked, since anyone that beautiful must surely be smart and sweet and cool and funny and wise. The fact is, Natalie Portman's approach to doing comedy is to deliver every line with a pained half-smile that looks as though she's hoping nobody notices she let loose a silent one.

Posted by: Natalie A-tired at January 22, 2011 5:59 PM

@Jo 'Mama' Besser: I hate the dueling movies...I always fall for the lesser one first! Isn't it kind of bad for the industry to have similar competing movies? What I find even more interesting is that the timing of FIVE more Natalie Portman opening in the next few months is totally going to hose her career.

Posted by: millsie at January 22, 2011 9:04 PM

I am pretty sure women will kill Natalie's career. SHe just slinks along right now, but I don't think she's likeable from a female perspective (of course I do know females that like her)and the overexposure will not do her good. The less movies she is in, the less obnoxious people realize she is.

Posted by: stump at January 22, 2011 10:34 PM

Stump:

"I am pretty sure women will kill Natalie's career. SHe just slinks along right now, but I don't think she's likeable from a female perspective (of course I do know females that like her)"

May I ask what it is that you consider likable from a female perspective? I honestly don't understand what you mean by this - is there some particular criteria of "female-friendly" characteristics a person should have to be palatable to women in general that I've somehow missed? (I suspect maybe I've actually deliberately missed this, as getting into that kind of territory asks me to take a critical approach to other women from a possibly competitive standpoint which I'm wholly uncomfortable with... so it could be that the comment is just pinging my "women-hating-women-to-their-own-detriment" radar - and possibly groundlessly, I'll admit.)

Posted by: MeganM at January 23, 2011 1:57 AM

@MeganM

I'm proud to say that my supreme dislike of Natalie Portman doesn't stem from a "women-hating-women-to-their-own-detriment" place, she is simply a turd. An entitled, pretentious turd who had a decent nose job and projects an obnoxious air of superiority and faux-intelligence with all the subtlety of Dame Heigl or a hefty kick in the balls.

Natalie HERSHLAG (no wonder she changed her name) is an awful actress who annoyingly always seems to get some sort of pass because some people cannot get over a lolita-fetish movie she did a whole generation gap ago. Never seen it, not 30. In every single movie I've had the misfortune to see her in she has been wooden and soulless enough to give ScarJo/Keanu/my floorboards a run for their money, yet she's categorised as one of the few talented and respectable young actresses of Hollywood and that is just bullshit.

On a more personal level I hated her equivocation of eating meat being akin to RAPE (those bloody vegans) and then she turned around and became a vocal supporter of Roman Polanski, an ACTUAL child rapist. But it's ok because of course silly "don't rape children" laws don't apply to wealthy Hollywood film directors. Seriously, Natalie Portman. FUCK YOU.

I also have no respect for her buying her way into a place at Harvard (most likely taking the place of an actual deserving student) and graduating with a useless art/history degree. Yeah, I said it. Useless.

Finally, there's that rumour about her stealing her homunculus of a ballerina boyfriend away from his long time live-in girlfriend that I don't care too much about, but what's most telling about her is that every single "I met/knew Natalie Portman" anecdote in existence on the interwebs always (and I mean ALWAYS) ends with "...and she was a stuck-up bitch". Half of them insinuate that she was also a massive dirty tramp, but that's really neither here nor there.

In conclusion, GARDEN STATE. MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL. ROMAN POLANSKI SUPPORTER. PRETENTIOUS TWAT.

Posted by: Brace yourself for a rant, good sirs at January 23, 2011 7:50 AM

Some of the things said above about her acting are just how I feel. That weird fake-sexy voice she does (no strings attached, hotel chevalier), the stiff half smile, and also the way she talks without moving her lips much. She does it in every movie and I can see her thinking through every line as if she's more concerned about looking cute or sounding sexy than actually evoking some sort of emotion or anything.

What I do like about her is that she's not all over the place at all times. Only when she's promoting a new movie do I see her around or hear anyone talk about her.

Posted by: Kayla at January 23, 2011 10:04 AM

I like the cut of your jib, Brace yourself.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at January 23, 2011 12:27 PM

@Brace yourself you rule for making the connection between her rape comment and supporting Roman. although, ironically, SHE ISN'T EVEN VEGAN! (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/12/14/natalie-portman-a-vegetarian-at-home-and-a-vegan-when-out)

Posted by: kristin at January 23, 2011 1:39 PM

I agree with every single thing above and I'll add this in her (meager) defense. My particular annoyance has to do with her big bang of an early career. After The Professional, most guys I knew fell hard for her. And man it was Creepy. And then (I'll assume she was misguided) she perpetuated that by doing Beautiful Girls. Also creepy. So now I have to feel weird about out by dudes walking around all Humbert Humbert. I didn't ask for that and I couldn't get away from it! Yuck

Posted by: millsie at January 23, 2011 3:02 PM

On second thought, I was probably just hanging around with the wrong guys.

Posted by: millsie at January 23, 2011 3:03 PM

'In every single movie I've had the misfortune to see her in she has been wooden and soulless enough to give ScarJo/Keanu/my floorboards'

I just went to see 'Black Swan' the other night and my main impression of Natalie Portman was that 'Black Swan' is her 'Matrix'...she was great in that role because that is basically her only acting ability. Bit like Keanu, everyone thought he was awesome in that, but come the sequel when he was required to do something other than look slightly shocked, confused and overwhelmed he blew it.
ERGO; Natalie Portman is the female Keanu Reeves. She'll do just fine in movies where she has to play uptight and repressed-but that's about it.

Posted by: Becky at January 23, 2011 3:10 PM

Kudos on the Baby Boomer comment. This generation has an easier time with sexual relationships than with emotional ones? Is that how this director justifies his thinly written femle lead? Kids these days just don't understand emotion..no, old male hollywood farts don't understand how to write honestly for women.

Posted by: Rachael M at January 23, 2011 6:33 PM

I also imagine a conversation sort of like this at
the Reitman Sunday Family Dinner:

"So uh, son, it wasn't really that bad, right?

"Dad, it was fine....don't stress it. Consider your overwhelming successful filmography..um. I gotta go...I have to do some work on a film that will be a wee more socially
relevant and thoughtful and smart than, well this abomination."

Jason walks away thinking, "Couldn't I have just beaten him at ping pong or something?"

Posted by: millsie at January 23, 2011 7:00 PM

The reason I say she is unlikeable is because she is very very beloved my males and that encourages jealousy. And it's different than with a Megan Fox or Jessica Alba because while those women are insanely beautiful (and in my opinion, better looking than Natalie who only looks really good when she is very thin), they aren't generally regarded as having good personalities or being intelligent.

Natalie is one of the smart ones for hollywood. Or, she plays one well.Either way, I don't think many men think fo Megan Fox as their dream wife, whereas Natalie is.

Also, I think she is pretentious which can be a turnoff to people. The more she is around, the more that will become apparent (ala Gwyneth).

Posted by: stump at January 23, 2011 9:28 PM

@ Brace yourself:

You had me at "Vocal Roman Polanski supporter." Fair enough - and, I enjoyed your rant. Well played, sir.

@ Stump:

So, your comment wasn't groundlessly pinging my radar then - good to know. (Jealousy? Yikes...)

Posted by: MeganM at January 23, 2011 11:08 PM

I finally got around to watching Black Swan yesterday. I giggled through a lot of it, because it's quite predictable and crappy. I do like Natalie but I know she's very one dimensional an actress. Definitely does not deserve an Oscar for that.

And the film struck me as just the same premise as The Wrestler. Is Darren stuck?

Posted by: Fuckchop at January 23, 2011 11:25 PM

Natalie Portman has now starred in films with Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher. Two down, four more to go, I guess, if her goal is to star in movies with all the kids from That '70s Show. In No Strings Attached, I wonder if that period mixtape he gives her also contained Alice Cooper's "Only Women Bleed."

Posted by: Beau Hajavitch at January 24, 2011 4:31 AM

Man alive, stump. Vocal Roman Polanski supporter. Can I hate this without being pegged 'jealous' of her beauty/intelligence/perfect-wifeosity? Am I allowed to not forgive a beautiful, horrid person? Or is my self-hating shrew showing?

Posted by: monsley at January 24, 2011 5:25 AM

Fuckchop, Black Swan was originally envisioned as a companion piece to The Wrestler, yes.

Posted by: Sarah at January 24, 2011 2:50 PM

I didn't say the only reason women dislike her is jealousy, just that when she becomes mainstream that will likely occur. Hold your horses there. Only a very small part of the reason I dislike her is jealousy, the rest is pure legitimate dumbassness on her part.

Posted by: stump at January 25, 2011 1:40 AM

Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

Posted by: increase serp at January 27, 2011 6:54 AM

Point of Order: I dislike Natalie Portman and think that she is a terrible actress who cheated by getting a nose job whilst at the same time pretending she to be above it all. However, her degree is in psychology which surely cannot be classified as art/history? I think it's highly likely that she is a genuine intellectual. But she can't act a whit. So, moral of the story, you can't have it all-- I think we can all be content with that.

Also, her real name, Hershlag, translates as 'Heatbeat', personally I think that's sort of lovely, she maybe shouldn't have changed it. I'm really surprised that 'No Strings Attached' is doing so well as I would have sworn that a majority of women find Portman offputting, is this a 'Black Swan' bump? But that movie is borderline awful! It's like a really accomplished B-picture. Poor old Mila Kunis, she must have lost a coin toss or something... who is going to see 'Friends with Benefits' now...?

Posted by: maviscruet at February 3, 2011 8:32 PM