Review: No Strings Attached

Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman meet as adolescents and bump into each other from time to time. There’s chemistry there, but they never do anything about it, until one day, circumstances lead them to having sex. Portman in particular rather likes the sex, so long as it doesn’t come with anything else. You know, like a relationship or love. She doesn’t want that, and as a med student, she hasn’t got the time anyway. Kutcher, obviously, would like more than just sex, you can see it all over his face from the first moment. But he goes along with the idea of ‘friends with benefits’ nonetheless. So off they go on a navel-gazing journey with commitment-free sex. But when it becomes obvious to Portman that Kutcher wants more, she cools things. All she wanted was sex, right?...Right? Lake Bell plays Kutcher’s gawky co-worker with obvious hots for him, Kevin Kline is his pot-smoking douchebag dad, a former TV star who steals his ex-girlfriend (Olivia Lovibond). Ludacris and Jake Johnson are his supportive best friends, Cary Elwes (looking old) plays a doctor, and Aussie Ben Lawson plays a rival to Portman’s affections (Wait, I thought she only wanted sex?).

I saw this 2011 Ivan Reitman (“Stripes”, “Ghostbusters”, “Kindergarten Cop”) romantic comedy before 2010’s “Love and Other Drugs”, and watching this one I kinda thought that if this is what modern romance and modern romantic comedies are about, I want nothing to do with it (And what is 60ish Reitman doing here anyway?). Having since seen “Love and Other Drugs” (very soon after, in fact), I can say that there is at least a way to do this kind of thing in an entertaining, charming, and honest fashion, but “No Strings Attached” does not find that way.

They say movies come in twos, releasing similar stories in fairly quick succession, sometimes by pure coincidence I’m sure. Whether it’s disaster movies (“Deep Impact” and “Armageddon”, “Volcano” and “Dante’s Peak”), movies about a voyage to Mars (“Mission to Mars” and “Red Planet”), or dopey alien invasion flicks (“Skyline” and “Battle: Los Angeles”). Well, 2010 and early 2011 saw three romantic comedies based around the same basic premise of a ‘fuck buddies’ (the film’s title at one point) situation; “Love and Other Drugs”, “No Strings Attached”, and “Friends With Benefits”. Hell, there were even basic casting similarities between the three (Kutcher and Portman here, Gyllenhaal and Hathaway, and Timberlake and Kunis in the other two. Kunis and Kutcher in particular are from “That 70’s Show”). It’s tough not to compare this film to “Love and Other Drugs”, but it comes off as much lesser. It fails to take its basic premise and make a believable and likeable romantic comedy out of it. That’s a bit of a surprise given that debut feature screenwriter Elizabeth Meriwether is one of the brains behind TV’s “New Girl”, which whilst not perfect, at least offers a terrific showcase for uber- quirky and adorable Zooey Deschanel (The supporting cast- which includes Jake Johnson, who has a supporting role here too- sucks, however).

Much moreso than “Love and Other Drugs”, this one actually takes the notion of a ‘fuck buddy’ and tries to transplant it onto a standard, by-the-numbers romcom situation (Hasn’t Meriwether watched “Seinfeld”? Sex and friendship never coexist smoothly!). In the other film, it felt far more organic, and the characters were likeable. Here it’s a failure, a disappointing surprise from such an esteemed filmmaker as Mr. Reitman (whose “Ghostbusters” is a comedy classic).

The biggest issue is with the Natalie Portman character. Through little fault of the actress (who is fine, but much too good for this), this is a charmless, selfish and unlikeable character, and she’s 50% of our romantic pairing here. If this were “Sleepless in Seattle” and Ashton Kutcher had the Meg Ryan role, then I kept wishing Meg Ryan ended up with Lake Bell’s Bill Pullman, because Portman (seemingly a sweetheart in real-life) is a grade-A bitch as Tom Hanks. In “Love and Other Drugs”, the Anne Hathaway character has much more motivation for wanting an uncomplicated relationship based on sex and no other attachments, because she has Parkinson’s and doesn’t want to be dependent on anyone. However, she’s also far more aware of her partner’s feelings and far more measured in her treatment of him. Not only that, but it’s obvious to the audience that there’s more than just sex going on after all. Here...not so much, Portman’s just a selfish cow. And that’s a big problem (not to mention head-scratching given Portman is EP here too). At one point, as is the case in all romantic comedies (and thus, am I really spoiling anything? Hardly!), Portman realises her true feelings for Kutcher. The problem is, I didn’t buy it because of the way the character had previously been portrayed. Even worse, I didn’t care. I genuinely wanted Ashton Kutcher to end up with Bill Pullman...er...Lake Bell. And believe me, that’s no mean feat, given I’ve not previously liked Bell at all. In fact, she’s usually cast as the heartless bitch. I know Portman’s super-smart and has played edgy characters before, but here’s a romantic comedy where you don’t want the central characters to end up together. They spend almost the entire film not admitting their true feelings, and so we spend the entire film with two morons in denial (whether intentionally or not) that they’re in a traditional romantic comedy. Fun stuff. Thus it is a complete failure at the most basic level of its chosen genre. There are no sparks between the leads because the Portman character spends the majority of the film being an aloof bitch who only thinks about her own needs and doesn’t suffer fools at all.

If this is what modern romance is, I clearly know nothing about it, nor do I really want to. But more than anything, this is just a crummy movie with few redeeming features (Starting the film with Colour Me Badd’s godawful ‘I Wanna Sex U Up’ was funny, though). It’s biggest attribute is the scene-stealing work by Kevin Kline as Kutcher’s hilariously douchy dad. He’s terrific and should’ve been in the film more. In fact, if he had been cast as Portman’s dad, it might’ve given enough reason for her behaviour and therefore some sympathy. But then, in a way, they’re both kinda similar, it’s just that Kline’s character seems to enjoy being himself, whereas I don’t think Portman’s character understands what fun is. Does she even enjoy the sex? I was never sure. I mean, she could’ve been faking it anyway. But the Kutcher character really isn’t much better. Yes, Portman is worse for manipulating and toying with his obvious feelings for her (the balloon scene should’ve been the tip-off for her), but he’s such a moron for agreeing to this situation in the first place that it’s tough to have any sympathy for him. I’m not terribly familiar with nor especially interested in the kind of relationship Kutcher and Portman are having here (I’m really not the best person to talk about relationships to be- too- honest), but when you don’t like either of the participants in said relationship and you don’t really sympathise with them, the film has to be considered a failure. Like I said, it’s on the most basic level of this genre (Kutcher, however, isn’t as annoying as he used to be, though he’s not Tom Hanks, either). From my perspective, these two characters are dipshits, but at least Portman has orchestrated things, Kutcher is just a tool for going along with it.

But there are other problems. The structure, especially early on, is incredibly clunky. Giving us a title card reading ‘One Year Ago’ after a scene that was itself preceded by a flashback from many years ago is just bloody awkward. Especially considering the ‘One Year Ago’ scene is set after the funeral scene that actually precedes it. What? It’s only then that we get a title card reading ‘Today’. It’s a really awkward set-up and introduction to the characters that really ought to have been stretched out. I don’t know whether to blame Meriwether (who wrote it), or Reitman (who simply ought to know better), but seriously, someone please explain to me why it needed to be structured that way. I’d be curious to see if anyone can give me an explanation. Go ahead, email me.

I also didn’t buy the scenes between Kutcher and his gaggle of best friends (as opposed to the gaggle of BFFs the chick in these sorts of films has, see, Kutcher really is playing Meg Ryan). I mean, who in the hell believes that Ashton Kutcher and Ludacris are best friends? Why in the hell is Ludacris in a romantic comedy, let alone offering up advice? What’s next, Eminem telling Channing Tatum ‘You gotta tap ‘dat fine honky ass, ‘yo! knowhatimsayin’, homey?’. I’m sorry, I’m just not at that point in my life where I can accept a gangsta rapper playing a supportive best friend in a romantic comedy. Besides, these scenes (inevitable as they are) just remind you of the fact that Meriwether and Reitman are trying to be Nora Ephron and Rob Reiner (“Sleepless in Seattle”, “When Harry Met Sally...”) with a premise that just doesn’t fit, and “When Harry Met Sally...” said back in 1989 everything that is still relevant to today, if you ask me (and made the journey from friends, to romantic denial, to romantic acceptance seem completely seamless and romantic).

I’m sorry, but this film is trying to be a standard romantic comedy with a twist that just doesn’t work for a basic romantic comedy situation, so that when the characters finally realise what the audience is supposed to have already figured out, it flops. We don’t care because for the most part it seems like Portman doesn’t care about anyone other than herself. I cannot tolerate a romantic comedy where one of the participants seems to genuinely believe that casual sex is real and anything else is fake. Or perhaps the film is trying not to be a traditional romantic comedy, but if that is the case it still fails, because the structure is most definitely belonging to that genre.

I won’t deny that some of this made me chuckle (Kutcher’s mixed tape for Portman’s menstrual issues is genuinely hilarious), but the whole premise didn’t work for me. Maybe if the Bell character was made the lead and Portman were the bitchy obstacle that she needs to overcome by making Kutcher see Portman for who she truly is, and also see Bell for who she is. That definitely would’ve been more palatable. Perhaps I’m out of touch and this film will resonate with many (I never understood the appeal of “sex, lies, and videotape” either, another film about sex and relationships), but if that’s the case, I don’t think I’d ever like to meet you. You sound superficial and cold. I’m happy to be single for the moment, if this is what I have to look forward to. I just didn’t understand the appeal of this one, sorry.

Rating: C