NO STRINGS ATTACHED (2011)

Quips galore could have been written from the title alone were this a failure of a film, which, if I must be honest, I expected it to be.  I watched it purely because I expected it to be great fodder for a review.  Lately it's become apparent that the powers that be make terribly misleading trailers (see Something Borrowed review).  I wrongly judged No Strings Attached for three, possibly four, reasons.

A. subject matter

B. the trailer

C. subject matter

....possibly....

D. Ashton Kutcher

This writer has been called a prude on more than one occasion.  Suffice it to say casual sex is not part of my vocabulary and doesn't compute on many levels.  Hence the subject matter was less than appealing.  The trailer didn't seem to bear substance.  I haven't seen anything with Ashton Kutcher that I found worth watching.

Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) meet at some kind of camp in their early teen years.  Emma, even as a child, is a little awkward at showing affection.  The two meet a few times over a span of six years, eventually sleep together, and decide to keep sleeping together as 'friends with (sexual) benefits.'  (People should be specific here because don't we all benefit from our friends?  If we don't they probably do.  Someone's benefiting.)  Adam develops feelings for Emma.  Emma disengages because she doesn't want anything to do with love.  Things happen, things happen, things happen, supporting characters advise our protagonists to stay together because they're meant to, and so Emma seeks forgiveness, Adams grants it and they decide to forge a meaningful relationship.  In fact, everyone is forming meaningful relationships.  It's relationships all around.  Yaaaaaay.

It's as predictable as men leaving their wives for younger women, yes.  Very predictable.  However, our characters are just lovable.  Ashton Kutcher was surprisingly charming, and not charming in his cute, boyish kind of way, actually grown-up charming.  A boyfriend like Adam who makes me a period mix?  An actual mix for my period?  Incredible.  Natalie Portman is Natalie Portman, and no one dislikes Natalie Portman.  Incredible chemistry.  The best I've witnessed in some time.  

The film is nicely done.  It's quiet.  It's almost...indie.  By no means is it Blue Valentine but it's also not The Ugly Truth/ atrocious.  No horrendous dialogue or unnecessary subplots.  Good casting in general.  No over present acting.  Again, the main story is predictable.  Personally, I don't think the R-rated language added anything to the quality, which would then make it unnecessary.  It's the other reason why this writer has been called a prude.  My ears seem to envelop into the sides of my head when I hear certain words, of which there are quite a few in No Strings Attached.  The crassness does subside, or rather soften.  

I'd love to hold a forum for debate on the whole 'friends with benefits' issue but it would be irrelevant to this review.  Also, judging from the wealth of comments on prior postings it wouldn't be much of a forum.  

The lesson I'm learning writing this blog is not to judge films before I see them.  Then again, how else do I choose which movies to waste my money on?  

Should you see No Strings Attached?  I can't say yes or no on this one.  Again, I only saw it because I expected it to be bad.  If I thought it was decent, I probably wouldn't have seen it anyway, unless it was on television.  I'll say if it's between Ugly Truth and No Strings Attached, most definitely pick No Strings Attached.  And no, this is NOT a precursor to a Friends with Benefits review.  

THOR (2011)

Before Thor, I hadn't stepped into a movie theatre in about 11months.  (I have my darling mini one to thank for the absence.)  I certainly wasn't expecting my reemergence into the cinema, a space with a special place in my heart, to leave me emotionally upset, actually quite close to physically.

Chris Hemsworth, you are beautiful.  Would you believe that Thor left me emotionally and physically upset because it seemed unfair that one woman would get to enjoy the obscene physical beauty that is its star actor.  I have to force myself not to consider the other attractive attributes that Mr. Hemsworth might own, like opening his lady's door, or offering her his coat, or carrying his lady's son's stroller into...

...I digress.

Thor runs for 1hr 54minutes.  What does this tell me?  This tells me that there are less likely to be extended and unnecessary scenes.  Most action movies these days are far too long.  To be frank, I expected nothing but good storytelling from Kenneth Branagh and good storytelling is exactly what made Thor such a delight to watch.  It's so easy.  It's just so, so easy.  Despite a cast of very talented actors, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, just to name a few, the film isn't memorable for any of them.  It stands on the merits of simple, effective storytelling.  

Side Note:  Hollywood, as far as your stories go, you should be fired.  Not all but most of your films are lacking.  For all the special effects, mega budgets and star power you often fuel into projects, one would think you could spend the necessary amount of time to ensure there is a point to it all.

Back to Thor.  Watch that hammer.  There may be a few unnecessary lines and one or two discrepancies, but because the story is a sweet one, they can be easily overlooked.  The film gets a pass in my class.

P.S. I never knew a hammer could be so sexy.