web counter
 

At Last, A Remake Of A Film That Hasn't Even Been Released Yet

By TK | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (38)

friends-with-benefits-movie-photo-3.jpg

Last week, Dustin showed you the trailer for No Strings Attached, a film about a pair of best friends who start having sex with each other when they’re in the middle of a bit of a dry run. Despite enjoying both their friendship and the commitment-free sex, they start to fall for each other.

Today, I’ve got the trailer for Friends With Benefits, which interestingly enough was the original title of No Strings Attached, except they had to change it from Friends With Benefits to No Strings Attached because Friends With Benefits was already called Friends With Benefits and therefore No Strings Attached (formerly Friends With Benefits) couldn’t exactly use the same name as Friends With Benefits because that would be weird and there’s probably some sort of law and thus that Friends With Benefits is now called No Strings Attached and the other Friends With Benefits can now be called Friends With Benefits without being confused for No Strings Attached because they’re totally different movies, yo.

Got that? Do try to keep up.

Anyway, here’s the trailer for Friends With Benefits. It’s a film about a pair of best friends who start having sex with each other when they’re in the middle of a bit of a dry run. Despite enjoying both their friendship and the commitment-free sex, they start to fall for each other.

(caution: red band for dirty words)

Wow. Awkward.

This one stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. It does not have Ludacris in it, but it does have Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone and Patricia Clarkson. It’s directed and written Will Gluck , who wrote and directed Easy A. Meaning it may well be the better of the two films that were both once called Friends With Benefits. Or were they both called No Strings Attached? I forget now.

Oh, fuck it.









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

← Beatles Wanted to Star in Lord of the Rings Adaptation | Why I Drink: If I'd Been Born Yet Edition | Pinpointing the Root of the Nation's Obesity Problem | Sugar: It Isn't Just Good Flavor; It's Good Food →









Comments

Aren't these movies just remakes of the Lea Thompson comedy Casual Sex? from back in the 1980s anyway?

Posted by: Fredo at November 8, 2010 10:37 AM

The difference? I actually found Timberlake and Kunis charming. It seems that they also have some chemistry as opposed to the awkwardness of the Kutcher/Portman pairing.

Posted by: admin at November 8, 2010 10:41 AM

I'm going to pretend like neither movie ever happened.

Posted by: Uda at November 8, 2010 10:43 AM

Kunis is looking good. Kutcher needs to go away.

Posted by: Skeetkus at November 8, 2010 10:45 AM

Ashton Kutcher + Natalie Portman

Mila Kunis Justin Timberlake > Ashton Kutcher
Justin Timberlake > Natalie Portman
Mila Kunis > Ashton Kutcher

It's math.

Posted by: superasente at November 8, 2010 10:47 AM

Goddammit, what happened to my post? Let's try this again.

Ashton Kutcher + Natalie Portman

Mila Kunis Justin Timberlake > Ashton Kutcher
Justin Timberlake > Natalie Portman
Mila Kunis > Ashton Kutcher

Posted by: superasente at November 8, 2010 10:50 AM

It's not going to work. Disregard.

Posted by: superasente at November 8, 2010 10:51 AM

Use your words, Superasante. Maths is not one of your strengths.

Posted by: admin at November 8, 2010 10:53 AM

"Justin Timberlake > Natalie Portman"

/throws the challenge flag

Dr. Cox would also like to remind you to hand in your man card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiDgV1RW-2s

Posted by: D-Day at November 8, 2010 10:55 AM

even with "social network", i can't understand Timberlake's appeal

Posted by: caro at November 8, 2010 10:56 AM

Fuck, they're both really skinny. Eat a cheeseburger, toothpicks!

Also, I can only understand every third sentence Mila Kunis says. I don't know if her voice is too whiny, too nasal, or she just talks too fast but all the words seem to merge together into "Noahdininfuckinblianghng".

Enunciate, woman.

Posted by: Ballymena Bob at November 8, 2010 10:59 AM

Karma's a bitch, ain't it, superasente?

Posted by: Rykker at November 8, 2010 11:00 AM

She's got a giant head, D-Day. Giant. Her and that Giada broad.

http://www.celebchefs.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/giadalaurentiis.jpg

Posted by: superasente at November 8, 2010 11:02 AM

Kunis is my new favorite euphemism for vagina.

Posted by: The Mutt at November 8, 2010 11:03 AM

I want to see this because Mila Kunis is my new Parker Posey. By that I mean, I feel this uncontrollable urge to see every damn film she's in. Posey lost the status when she got tangled up in the remake of one of my favorite films of all time, The Eye, which ruined her for me. I just couldn't see it, and I haven't intentionally watched her since in anything, not even Scream 3, where she's the only reason to watch the film.

But Mila Kunis? She's golden right now. That is until she gets cast in a remake of Rosemary's Baby or Jezebel. Then all bets are off.

Posted by: Robert at November 8, 2010 11:08 AM

I see, and now you have sullied the name of Tits McChef.

That'll be another one, Susan.

/swipe

Posted by: Dr. Cox at November 8, 2010 11:10 AM

Another way in which these two movies are alike: The female leads are WAAAAAYYY more charming than their male counterparts.

Posted by: jimbob at November 8, 2010 12:40 PM

jimbob, yes! Strangely I actually think the Kutcher/Portman one looks better. And why was there no Emma Stone in this trailer?? Everything is better with Emma.

Posted by: Even Stevens at November 8, 2010 1:32 PM

I'm thinking that I'll just pretend the Kutcher one doesn't exist, and watch this one instead.

Because I think I'll actually enjoy it, and ignore everyone who's like "Come on dude this is stupid why don't you have any chick friends you can watch this with?" and then I have to be like "Look I've told you they're all passive-aggressive grudge-holding assholes and I prefer to be friends with dudes get your hand off my leg."

Posted by: nolalola at November 8, 2010 1:38 PM

heres my opinion (because it SERIOUSLY matters). mila kunis and natalie portman are doing almost the exact same movie, but different movies. and they are in Black Swan together, which is sure to be fantastic. anyways, i really have grown to like natalie portman, mila kunis, and recently, justin timberlake, who has gained SERIOUS credibility as an actor. this may just be a raunchy, funny weird romcom, that could possibly have a somewhat unexpected ending...*crossing fingers*...?? i hate ashton kutcher though. after What Happens In Vegas and Killers, i hate him on a molecular level. also, this movie has woody fucking harrelson (WIN), emma stone (MEGA WIN), richard jenkins (awesome), and patricia clarkson (mega awesome). what does No Strings Attached have? natalie portman (WIN), and the asshole from Punk'd that cant act to save his life. FAIL

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at November 8, 2010 2:16 PM

Obviously this one isn't going to be called No Strings Attached because of Timberlake's *NSYNC album (which is hilarious). But seriously, this does seem very charming although this is a pretty played out genre of romantic comedy, "best friends who are meant to be more!". I'm not sure it could fill out an entire film but at least Timberlake is learning how to be funny without trying so hard SNL Samberg style.

Posted by: valerie at November 8, 2010 2:29 PM

This actually looks pretty good.

Posted by: sailboat at November 8, 2010 2:42 PM

Can we screen them in splitscreen?

Posted by: coryo at November 8, 2010 2:53 PM

yeah, ok. I guess I live in Parallel World cuz the Kutcher movie seems way better than this one.

Posted by: Stella at November 8, 2010 3:04 PM

Every time I wanted to pop in with an argument D-Day went ahead and stole it from me.

My only question:
Why does this one look more like a comedy than the other one? I'm just...I'm just confused.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at November 8, 2010 4:45 PM

I watched that whole damn trailer to catch a glimpse of my beloved. Either I got distracted by the delicious tea I was having or Emma Stone just wasn't in it. I'm so hurt.

Posted by: A-schaef at November 8, 2010 6:49 PM

I agree with you admin. I sense more chemistry and charm in this version as well, and it did make me laugh. It seems like the casting is correct for each format though. I would never buy Natalie Portman as a football & chips friend, but I do buy her as an overworked commitment phobic doctor. I am torn, because I love both of those women, am indifferent to the men, and generally give romantic comedies a wide berth.

Posted by: Jenne Frisby at November 8, 2010 7:15 PM

I too have no understanding at all of the attraction to Justin Timberlake, but... sorry guys, also with Emma Stone. Granted, she's not nearly as horrible as JT, and for the most part she is actually quite adequate in her roles. But that's as far as I can go. Cute and adequate.

This movie looks like crap and I will probably see it some bored afternoon on Netflix.

Posted by: Eva at November 8, 2010 7:20 PM

It looks awful but waaaaaaayyyyy better than the Kutcher one. I can't really get the Justin Timberlake as an actor thing as I've never seen him in anything (and probably won't see this). He and Kutcher both look like they play themselves but he seems like slightly less of a shit-eating douchebag.

And I'm sure it's just me and the tumbleweed over here but Mila Kunis is more believably sexy than the Portman-bot.

Posted by: sara at November 9, 2010 7:55 AM

Don't fret superasente, your math isn't wrong, you just left out one final equation I like to call "The Black Swan Postulate".

Ashton Kutcher + Natalie Portman

Mila Kunis + Justin Timberlake > Ashton Kutcher
Justin Timberlake > Natalie Portman
Mila Kunis > Ashton Kutcher

Natalie Portman
___________
Mila Kunis + (3X) 8===D >> Justin Timberlake + Ashton Kutcher

Problem solved.
See kids, math CAN be fun.

Posted by: bleujayone at November 9, 2010 10:03 AM

Ok, So the Ashton Kutcher movie is out January and this one Summer? Clearly... Ashton got the bad end of the stick. Isn't January Dump any movie month?

Posted by: tallulahc at November 9, 2010 3:42 PM

This actually looks like something I'd see on a Saturday afternoon if I had a couple hours to kill.

Posted by: heatseeker at November 10, 2010 1:47 PM

Natalie Portman is smart and nice and in her means very beautiful. I think she will be a "A" lister for the rest of her life.

Posted by: Shandi Mcniel at November 21, 2010 5:04 AM

On family vacation. 1st rule of family vacation: no relaxing. 2nd rule of family vacation: WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THERE?!

Posted by: Sandy Soderblom at November 21, 2010 5:57 AM

justin timberlake is a great singer I'll give him a A on singing

Posted by: Alyssa Cirelli at November 28, 2010 1:13 PM

justin timberlake is a good singer I'll give him a A on singing

Posted by: Ellis Troyano at November 28, 2010 2:04 PM

Ashton Kutcher, don't you just love him. I think he is a funny guy and I'm looking forward for his new movie No Strings Attached

Posted by: George White at December 23, 2010 6:08 AM

It is uncanny that I see this today. I was just thinking of it this am. Thank you for sharing

Posted by: Alexis Schaneman at January 5, 2011 9:22 PM