I would watch it weekly without fail. The characters are 3D, their lives interesting, the dialog graceful and funny...so why was I so disappointed by and frustrated with this movie? Because there just needed to be more. The short running time compacts all the problems and situations down to bare essentials, and there is too much going on for this film to skim across the surface the way it does. I guess the point is to show us a snapshot of these people at a very specific point in their lives, and then move on. The more-than-able cast certainly helps--particularly Frances McDormand, who can do more with just her eyes and mouth than most actors can with a page of script (just watch the way she looks at everything around her--especially other people). And while I am a huge fan of 70s-style non-endings, I admit that this movie's abrupt stop (after a very convenient and pat wrap-up) left me with an "Eh" kind of feeling. While it is certainly watchable and interesting AS FAR AS IT GOES, this movie is no "Walking and Talking." Have you seen that movie? "W and T" is absolutely brilliant, another small portrait of long-time female friends, but because it narrows its scope to two characters in a particular situation (one's wedding), it achieves all the depth and poignancy and hilarity that "Friends with Money" lacks. If "F w/ M" were a TV series, if it fully explored the characters' lives and situations in some depth and detail, I'd be its #1 fan. Maybe the DVD will include deleted scenes (say about 40 or 50) and the movie will finally feel complete.
Add a Review
-
vivalarsx22 April 2006
-
janos45117 March 2006"Friends with Money" is Americana the sit-com way: it is about older, (much) more monied, West Coast clones of TV's loathsome "Friends." Although it appears a slow-mo imitation of Woody Allen at his talkiest, the film does well. The reason: a quartet of actresses having a ball.
Nicole Holofcener's script and direction are merely OK: a medium-funny, not very insightful soap about three couples and a single woman (Jennifer Anniston), who is younger than her six friends, jobless, aimless, sloppy and rather annoying. Of the three husbands, only Simon McBurney is outstanding, but he really is, the English actor turning in a wonderful performance as a super-nice metrosexual.
Anniston does her best, which here works better than in any of her other roles. But "Friends with Money" is worth seeing because of - in order - Frances McDormand's huge star turn, with her unsuppressed rage turning into petty, ordinary rudeness; Catherine Keener, sleepwalking through affluence; and Joan Cusack, as a nice mega-rich woman without guilt or troubling thoughts.
The pace is glacial and steady; after a while, the film settles into a pleasant, moderately quirky flow, until a sudden and inconclusive end. Through it all, performances are to be enjoyed, and in McDormand's case, treasured. Never again will you be able go without washing your hair and not think of Frances McDormand. -
burgerific2 May 2006Not only is this not a groundbreaking film, it's not a particularly pleasant, or enjoyable one either. It centers around a group of early 40s-somethings who hate their lives, their spouses and their place in the world. The casting of Aniston is strange, as she is easily 10 years younger then her circle of friends.
While you'd think that the film is trying to state "happiness has nothing to do with how much money you have", the opposite appears to be true as the more elevated couples do have less problems. And, if fact, all of Aniston's problems are seemingly solved when she manages to snag a wealthy (albeit slacker) guy herself. While the three married couples do have children, they don't add anything to the story, as they seem more like convenient accessories than meaningful relations. While that may be a creative choice, the fact that it runs across all three couples identically makes me inclined to believe it's just sloppy, two-dimensional screen writing. None of the story lines are brought full circle and the entire exercise feels like a long death march towards irrelevance. Several interesting notions are addressed, but none closely examined or fully developed. While there are poignant moments and some nice creative decisions (i.e. allowing the actors to look their age), this genre has been mined before to better results (i.e. "Grand Canyon"). -
anhedonia30 April 2006"Friends With Money" seems like an incomplete film. It's as if writer-director Nicole Holofcener either got tired of her characters and simply ran out of ideas. I don't mind films where nothing much happens or there is no narrative conclusion. But there seems something awfully unfinished and undeveloped about this movie.
On the other hand, what makes it watchable are the performances.
Jennifer Aniston does her best work since "The Good Girl" (2002). She still has the best chance of the "Friends" cast to have a sterling film career, if she continues doing work like this - at least playing characters like Olivia. She should stay away from playing femmes fatale - her performance in last year's dismal "Derailed" was ample proof she's not ready to venture into Stanwyck or Fiorentino territory, yet.
But Aniston has a fine sense of finding that line between comedy and drama without pushing either one too far. Her Olivia is a believable person who just has incredibly lousy taste in men - thus far. Watching the hurt and disappointment on Aniston's face when Mike's (Scott Caan) true character comes out shows this woman's got talent.
Mike actually might be this film's most intriguing and interesting character. Caan's very good in the role and just when you think you like him, he does something despicable.
Holofcener's film centers around a group of friends, most of whom are affluent, if not stinking rich. The exception is Olivia. And throughout the film, Holofcener unveils their pains, insecurities and flaws.
Joan Cusack plays the guilt-ridden wealthy woman well and Catherine Keener, again, proves why she remains so incredibly under-rated. Here's an actress who can take small moments in a film and turn them into unforgettable ones. Keener's so completely compelling and honest in her performance. Christine's discussions with her husband, David (Jason Isaacs), never ring false thanks to two strong performances.
The weak link in the film really is Frances McDormand's Jane. This isn't the wonderful McDormand's fault. Trouble is, Holofcener paints McDormand's Jane as such a one-dimensional person - a woman who turns her suppressed rage into a rather annoying persona. Holofcener never bothers to penetrate the surface of Jane's problems. We just know she's angry and that's all we see of her. It's a shame because a woman of McDormand's infinite acting talents deserved a much richer character.
"Friends With Money" seems rather superficial at times because, unlike Holofcener's previous two films, this one simply skirts the surface of the characters. With the exception of Olivia and, to a lesser extent, Christine, we never see other sides to these people.
There's more to their stories. Much more. But Holofcener shows no interest in going there. -
pswitzertatum8 July 2006This film was recommended to us by someone who loved it, especially the part played by Jennifer Aniston. She did a good job, among a whole group of good actors. We thought the film was fascinating and quirky because of the fine acting, especially Frances McDormand's. The female and male characters are for the most part more interesting personalities than often found in American films. But the abrupt ending left us cold. We were just getting into the drama of it all, and it was over. We wonder if there are alternative endings on the DVD? Deleted scenes? I'd like to read the screenplay. I enjoyed some of its parts, but not the sum of its parts.
-
brianhellerbeck25 April 2006Once you get through the first half-hour of this film, you've seen essentially all you need to see, plot-wise: four friends, three of whom have money, and all of whom are "stuck" in some way. Thank goodness for Frances McDormand, whose superb acting makes this movie watchable long after the scenes start repeating themselves. Catherine Keener and Joan Cusack are also very good to watch, even if their roles do not allow for much development. Jennifer Anniston's role and her ability to carry the part are both severely flawed: Anniston brings absolutely no personality to the part, and the part itself doesn't ever really develop. For this movie, it's a fatal predicament, since Anniston's role is the central one.
-
irishduck200014 October 2006Friends With Money is a quirky and shallow interpretation of friends, relationships and the ever present views on wealth. Although at times it seems to skim over certain issues that are produced, the overall movie left me with a confused contentment. It didn't answer all the questions and left it decidedly up to the audience to figure out and is possibly a good mirroring of life itself- sometimes things aren't just resolved and we are left to our imaginations to decide how we want it to end. Although many people did not recommend the movie, I found it was a beautiful epitome of a more modern indie film that the main actors rise spectacularly to. Jennifer Aniston (whom I must admit is not one of my most favorite actresses at the moment following her box-office bombs) plays a smaller role but does so in an unimposing way, and allows the other great cast to have their fair share of the movie as well. Altogether, I found it confusing at times and yet agreeable in the end. Not for the pickiest of film critics, this movie is to be enjoyed whilst in a more airy state of mind. Enjoy and try to look at the movie as more of an art- not just any old movie.
-
sergepesic9 June 2008I could sum up this whole movie experience with two words: Who cares. Group of extremely dislikable people and their self-centered and meaningless lives rambling about their non-existing problems. I don't have to like the characters, I don't have to feel close to them, I could even hate them, but, on some basic level I have to care what happens to them. That is not the case with this superficial and contrived movie. And to top it all, the cast of such talented and interesting actresses wasting their time to enliven this carcass of a movie. If you are trying to tell a story, it has to have some natural progression, and , for Goodness sake, some purpose. " Friends with Money" has none whatsoever.
-
uliseszg15 October 2006I liked this movie very very very much. And don't blame my mood at the time it was 2:30 am when I caught it on DISH Network's PPV. In 2 mins I was hooked up with the movie, I mean, when you don't see a movie from the beginning you only need 5 mins (10 at the most) to see if you should see it. I love the black humor in some parts and the specific description for each of the characters. You can feel one of them or you can relate to someone you know, etc. The dialogs are not very well made, but they are OK, generally speaking. If you like subtle, sad, black, etc kind of humor you'll love this film. The great actress and good actors are definitely a plus
-
tunnelboy22 May 2009I know everybody is different. Some people love jazz and hate rock, others love rock and hate hip hop. I understand it and I make no judgments. But a movie like this? I just don't see how ANYONE could give this more than a few stars. It's not entertaining, there's no comedy, no drama, no story, and it all goes nowhere. It's not even arty it's just mundane. More than halfway in, I told my wife I wanted out, and she said "lets just give it a little more". Well, nothing else happened. At the end you're left scratching your head.
This movie was highly recommended to us by a friend. She loaned us her DVD to watch it (she actually bought it). After seeing it, I think my wife and I are going to be looking at our friend in a whole new way. What did she see in this thing? If you have it, save it for a rainy day when you have no other DVD's to watch, the TV is out, and there are no books or board games. Even then.... -
mckenzieray30 April 2006It's true that this movie is utterly bereft of car crashes and blood, but both my husband and I enjoyed it very much. I found it very refreshing to spend time in the company of people my age whose lives are not non-stop excitement, who are not trying to escape from terrorists/having sex with an unending stream of nubile blondes/both.
Yes, this movie is dialogue-driven, and yes, many of the comments and even conversations will seem familiar. I enjoyed watching and hearing people I could genuinely relate to, discussing problems which, if not all directly paralleling my own concerns, I could at least understand. The movie deals with the role that money has in personal happiness and how it changes the dynamics of friendships, and effectively shows that while money is neither a universal panacea, neither is it the root of all evil. One of the interesting questions the movie raises is also what you focus on and contemplate when money isn't an issue for you.
I thought the movie accurately portrays many of the misgivings that women in their 40s experience, even when they're financially comfortable--dealing with Olivia's feelings of *invisibility*, Jane's quiet despair at the loss of the hopeful anticipation with which she used to view her upcoming life, Christine's external expression of her mental off-balancedness and gracelessness.
There are plenty of movies out there directed at 18-year-old skateboarding ninja-fiends--is it so wrong to make one for me?? I found the performances (especially Jason Isaacs' overbearing and emotionally heedless American husband) compelling and believable, and I enjoyed this movie a lot. -
BenCurtisActor28 November 2021The women were awesome however the script seemed a bit incomplete and the story ended abruptly. Frances MacDormand is amazing. A feel good movie with a sweet undertone.
-
forkerouac25 April 2006This is a "so what?" movie. Some of the characters have unhappy marriages, some are selfish, some are insensitive, some are lazy. Nothing new, nothing significant; instead, the characters are thoroughly mundane and typical. These people are their own problems. They don't struggle against outside forces. They don't struggle much at all.
It is great to see that the cast isn't made up of teenage girls (or 30 year-olds playing teenage girls). The actors and the characters here are grown-ups, and they are not glossed-up in the manner of a typical Hollywood film. But there just isn't enough relevance or comedy or drama or anything to support a feature film. So why did this movie get made? Don't know. Why see it? No reason there either. -
wmjaho28 February 20062006 Sundance Film Festival I don't know if Jennifer Anniston can give a bad performance. Coming off of Friends I never would have guessed it, but she has such charming vulnerability, almost a Mary Tyler Moore or a Meg Ryan for our generation, that every character she portrays I find interesting.
Friends with Money is a study in contradictions. It's a comedy with moments of uncomfortable intensity. It's a social commentary that feels vaguely insightful while flaunting political correctness (the wealthy couple turns out to be the happiest and most well-adjusted). It's an ensemble piece that clearly features Anniston in another successful and intriguing role.
This is a well-respected cast, mainly four couples linked by the friendship of the women, including Joan Cusack, Greg Germann, Catherine Keener, Francis McDormand and Simon McBurney. Cusack departs from her more usual comedic role, leaving the plum scenes to Anniston, who is so deadpan, and so pathetic, that she becomes completely endearing.
There are plenty of reasons to reject this film. It's dialog driven, with barely enough plot to move from scene to scene. It feels like it's written for women, and maybe inaccessible to some men. And we never really get to know the characters well enough, only through intimate introduction to some of their problems.
But if you watch it like a conversation between friends you will likely find something familiar here. Along with the grins, and Jennifer Anniston, that makes Friends with Money worth the trip. -
SnoopyStyle31 December 2014Four women are best friends. Franny (Joan Cusack) is a stay at home mom with a trust fund and a loving husband Matt (Greg Germann). Jane (Frances McDormand) is a clothes designer and everybody thinks that her husband Aaron (Simon McBurney) is gay. Christine (Catherine Keener) is in a successful but combative TV writing relationship with her husband David (Jason Isaacs). Olivia (Jennifer Aniston) is the only one without money. She was a teacher at a fancy school who quited becoming a maid. Franny sets Olivia up with her trainer Mike (Scott Caan).
There are some fun exchanges and some fun observational relationship humor. The problem is that the movie is a bit random with so many characters and so many story lines. It's hard to keep track of everybody and even harder to track their emotional connections. I'd like for the movie to stay with one woman for longer than a minute at a time. It adds to the feeling of randomness. The movie would probably be better with one less woman. -
evanston_dad4 December 2006I want to like the films Nicole Holofcener directs, because I feel that she makes sensitive, intelligent films about women from a woman's point of view, and that's a feat mainstream Hollywood has certainly never been adept at achieving.
But "Friends with Money" is a tiresome movie that goes nowhere, populated with characters we learn next to nothing about behaving in ways that drive us crazy. Jennifer Aniston has the central role as a young woman who used to be a teacher and now cleans houses for a living, when she's not obsessing over a former boyfriend or letting her current boyfriend walk all over her. Aniston's character is the kind that we really need to understand if we're to feel any sympathy for; Holofcener manages to make us frustrated with her but little more.
A trio of fine actresses (Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener, and Joan Cusack) play Aniston's affluent, disagreeable friends. Their stories consist of scene after scene of them being unpleasant in a variety of situations, the movie settling into a pounding monotony that makes its 90 minute running time feel much longer. It doesn't make any sense at all that these three would still be friends with Aniston, yet at the same time, I couldn't wholly believe McDormand or Keener as rich bitch socialites either. The only point the movie seems to make is that money and affluence don't bring one happiness or fulfillment, a conclusion I already came to long ago, so the film has virtually nothing to say to me.
A dull movie that feels more like an outline than an actual film.
Grade: D+ -
I put off watching this for ages because I just assumed it was another Jennifer Aniston (exchange the guy, get same movie) romantic comedy. I also can't keep any of her movies straight because they're so similar so I wasn't sure if I'd seen it or not.
Anyways I ended up really enjoying this mostly due to the large ensemble cast and a cleverly written script. (Frances McDormand, Joan Cusack, Scott Caan, Catherine Keener, Jason Isaacs, Greg Germann) I became invested in all these characters, who give an interesting and well acted character study.
The story follows three successful couples, all in their forties and struggling through midlife despite their wealth. All the stories intertwine with Jennifer Anniston playing the single loser friend who can't find a man (really), has zero self confidence and envies the security of her married friends. They in turn dream of her freedom. It was interesting to see Anniston as a pot smoking, slacker but honestly she was still just another reboot of Rachael Green. I did really enjoy Joan Cusack and also Frances Mcdormand's storyline. 01/13 -
arizonalynne4069 January 2007Okay, I love Jenn just as much as the next person and actually I love all the actresses that appeared in this movie. Joan Cusack is awesome, Frances McDormand is a wonderfully gifted actress. But all of them together in this movie just made for one horrendously horrible film. I've wanted to see this movie for a long time and I can not begin to describe how horrifically I was disappointed. There virtually was no story line, just a group of "Friends" getting together every now and then and bitching and complaining about the world. If I wanted to see and hear that, I'd visit with my mother and my aunt. I want to be entertained by a movie, and I was not entertained. Jenn should've stuck with her other "Friends". I love her but not this movie. Why was she stalking a married man? We were never told anything about their relationship at all. There were vieled references but nothing to say if it was really meaningful. There was no ending to this movie. Okay, Jen and the fat guy are in bed talking about drapes and then poof! It's over. Whatever "it" was. Hopefully, she'll have something better for us in the new year. And by the way, I loved "The Good Girl". Very dark and out of the ordinary for Jen.
-
voom20 October 2006I was a bit apprehensive about seeing this film, due to the mixed reviews and my current dislike of Jennifer Aniston as a result of what, to me, seems like unnecessary over exposure. However, I love Catherine Keener and Joan Cusak and decided to go ahead and see the film anyway. I am very glad I have done so.
First of all I'd like to say that I think this case is a classic example of how reviews can really hurt a film. It's best to see this movie without reading prior reviews because they will taint the way you see it and influence your own opinions on it. When it was first released the Director was praised as "a female Woody Allen." Keep in mind she did not say that she was a "female woody Allen" this is a label someone else put on her, so of course when the film debuted and it had this buzz around it people reacted negatively because they were expecting Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters and got something completely different. While I think the director is good, she is no Woody Allen, not yet, but does hold a lot of promise.
This film is about four friends. Three are well off and married, and the other is single, not so well off, and working as a maid. The richest friend seems to have the best marriage, spends her days as a housewife, and her biggest concern is that her small son might be gay. One works as a writer on what we assume to be a sitcom, and her marriage is on the rocks. The other seems to be going through some kind of personal crisis and this is evident through her lack of personal hygiene, which becomes a kind of running joke.
I would have liked more back story and character development in this film. For example, it doesn't really explain how the main women became friends, but does hint that if they were to meet under their current circumstances they might not necessarily become friends.
All this aside - the movie is enjoyable. It seems to be the perfect length. I found myself not wanting the film to end, as I wanted to know more and see what was going to happen with this group of women, however the ending does resolve some main issues presented in the story and I found the ending satisfactory. It's definitely worth a watch for the dynamic of friendships among women. It's like Sex and the City except 3/4 of the girls are married and not as funny. It's interesting to see a glimpse into a society of wealth and money that most of us are not privy too, and I think the director handled this aspect particularly well.
On an ending note, Jennifer Aniston's performance was satisfactory. She is not as despondent as she was in The Good Girl or as cheery on Friends, but a more annoyed, grounded, real woman in this movie. Someone we can imagine has dirty fingernails. The realism of her character was what struck me the most. Especially how she stalks her old lover and frequents High-End Department stores for the free samples. It is a side of her we have not seen before and she takes all the romance out of her character and makes her seem very real, like someone we all know (or maybe even ourselves). But, like others have said, Frances McDormand totally steals the show. Her cynical and angry character is very engrossing, and I almost wish she had more scenes. Catherine Keener also isn't the film as much as I would have liked but she does an excellent job playing an oblivious woman who is more apt to point out others problems than her own.
All in all, definitely worth a watch. Not exactly thought provoking or moving, but entertaining. Might not be an Annie Hall but definitely better than Melinda and Melinda. -
ferguson-615 April 2006Greetings again from the darkness. Hotshot writer/director Nicole Holfocemer ("Walking and Talking", "Lovely and Amazing") is often described as a female Woody Allen - an artist who taps into the psyche of women. This film is nothing more than a black hole. Where are the intelligent and insightful women? All we get here is neurosis.
The cast is filled with normally excellent performers such as Frances McDormand, Jason Isaacs, Simon McBurney and Joan Cusack. McDormand flashes no redeeming qualities as the always angry, what's wrong with me, middle age woman who wonders what it's all about. Puhuleeze! Did I mention that she is a well known clothes designer who treats everyone like crap? And what is with Joan Cusack? No idea if she has had plastic surgery or is suffering from an eating disorder, but she somehow looks deformed and sickly. She has always been excellent in support roles due to her ability to emote real life. The mega rich diva just doesn't work. Catherine Keener is one of the few who brings any real depth to her role. Of course, she may just have lucked out as one of the few in the script who had any type of character development with which to work.
Not even sure what to make of Jennifer Aniston. After her brilliant turns in "The Good Girl" and "Office Space", she has done nothing to improve her image as a lovely TV star still trying to transition to the big screen.
The most frustrating part of the film is that the viewer is left with the feeling that SOMETHING might happen at any time. Will Aniston show some backbone? Is Simon McBurney's character going to cross the line? Will Jason Isaac's explode? Instead, the boring film leaves us with NOTHING! What could have been a wonderful ending is ruined as Aniston and an intriguing character, Marty, played by Bob Stephenson, smoke pot and unload a huge secret that would never be revealed on date number one. Give me more of this couple ... forget the rich yups! -
Thomas-White219 June 2007I watched this again on DVD, having seen it when it first came out in theaters. I ran to see it, and not just because it had three of my favorite actresses in it. In fact, I had some doubts because it had Jennifer Aniston in it, whom I had never been impressed with (not a fan of Friends at all). But this movie changed my mind about her, and I really enjoyed it.
I do tend to like this kind of film, which some people would probably term a "chick movie". I don't think it is, though. I think it's a people movie. But even that's too much for some people, probably the kind of guy who wouldn't sit right next to another guy in a theater because people might think they're gay. And, no, I'm not gay, just emotional and sensitive.
Still, I liked it more than I expected. Sometimes movies can be a little too girl-y for me, but this one was really about ALL the people involved, although the main connections were between the four women who are the leads. All friends, one of them has not done as well financially as the rest, but it's not only on her story that the plot of the movie turns. All four are going through some sort of issue in their lives, and there is some resolution with all of them, not all of equal import. And none of it is complete; there is no easy wrapping up here of any one story line. You do leave wondering what will happen with each of the characters, with the sense that life is going on beyond the final fadeout. I really liked that about the film.
As a not-too-well-off person living not-too-far-away from the affluent area of Los Angeles this is set in, I usually don't feel comfortable watching movies about people who have a lot of money and don't seem aware of the rest of us. These people share the view that they coexist in the world with a lot of other people who are not as well off; they're sensitive to the dilemmas of others, and are grateful that they (so far) are leading privileged lives. Even the most wealthy of them is a real human being, has issues, is far from perfect. This is a real-life view of Los Angeles people who are living real lives. I highly recommend it to anyone who themselves has a real life. -
mapletam5 May 2006If anything, this movie teaches something that everyone should already know, which is that everyone--no matter the socio-economic background--has problems. Money only makes theses problems seemingly easier to remedy. With this in mind, I was able to watch the film and not have any issues with these "friends with money" bitching about their issues.
I thought that the acting, Frances McDormand's, in particular was good. Most of the laughs that I got were during her scenes. Someone mentioned that Jennifer Anniston's performance was just like her performance in "The Good Girl" in that her acting was sort of non-emotional (filled with deadpan stares and monotone voice). I felt the same way, yet I think she gave a really good performance. If that makes any sense. Catherine Keener gave a pretty compelling performance as a woman in an unhappy marriage.
I did feel, though, that the ending could've been better. Especially the whole Jennifer Anniston/chubby guy thing. Why could he not tell her about his true financial situation? And why the whole attempt to get her to charge him less for her service, which he blamed on the fact that he has issues. -
Wrong. Just saw this film, hoping for some clever humor, original dialogue and an interesting theme. Well, some say I expected too much, and they were right.
Catherine Keener was excellent in "Walking and Talking", as well as "Lovely and Amazing" - do not expect this film to equal EITHER of those, even by half. While the "slice-of-life" idea is explored(as it has been since the mid 80's by Woody Allen), it is not terrible, nor is it terribly creative, either.
We see McDormand, Joan Cusack and Keener in various stages of marriage. Jennifer Aniston portrays the solitary single girlfriend. I gave this movie a chance, because I have to admit I have a bias against Aniston. Unfortunately, those who say she is only for the small screen are 100% correct. She plays the same mixed-up, dissatisfied woman-child; getting high, working as a maid in southern California, while her friends are sympathetic, yet financially comfortable.
Some of the scenes with McDormand are amusing, and Keener is always realistic when portraying marital discord; her husband intimates she eats too much junk food- they begin yet another argument. Actually, if Keener's character was more fully developed, she and McDormand could have carried the film.
The Cusack character seems superfluous- she has too much money and doesn't know where to spend it. She attends charity dinners and tells Aniston she will lend her money for therapy, but not for personal trainer lessons. (Is this an inside joke?. If so, the audience of 3 in the theatre I was in was NOT laughing).
The male characters are one-dimensional and barely examined- apparently this is another "woman's movie". Instinctively, I did not ask my husband to sit through this.
I have always loved McDormand (even in "Laurel Canyon") and Keener. Unfortunately it seems this project was designed for a particular audience. Judging from the attendance at an extremely large Muvico in Boca Raton, Florida, Aniston and her quirks do not a movie make. And McDormand and Keener deserve better. 2/10 -
secondtake26 March 2011Friends with Money (2006)
Another interesting Nicole Holofcener film starring Catherine Keener, though not as inventive or funny or convincing as their more recent "Please Give." This is a tale of three and a half couples, and that's a lot of main characters to establish, especially given their relative similarity--all are white, well heeled, urban (and urbane), educated, and articulate. They are all friends, and there are some establishing scenes with all seven characters talking around a table, a little like some of Woody Allen's restaurant scenes.
Oh, Woody Allen? Speaking of white, well heeled, etc. etc. Though being Jewish is not a salient part of the mix here, removing a series of stereotypes and jokes that Allen uses so well. The humor and satire and sometimes social criticism is largely cultural, and seemingly mainstream (since we all wish we were rich, at least on some days). But Woody Allen is frankly a better writer than Holofcener, at least so far (again, "Please Give" does resonate better), and I think his sense of physical presence, with the camera weaving around heads, or in other scenes of simple ambiance and old fashioned beauty, is not matched here.
And this matters--the writing and camera-work--because there is no single event that turns the story here. In fact, there is very little that happens at all except a glimpse into a little bit of America, like "Sex and the City" (which Holofcener was involved with) but without the single girl on the prowl edge. If this movie is striving for poignancy within the ordinary, it gets halfway there, and half of poignant is something insufficient, yet still interesting.
Most of all, the movie has a cast of great actors, all of them. The four women at the center of this (sound familiar?) are stellar: McDormand, Keener, Cusack (Joan), and Aniston (who plays the single girl of the bunch). The husbands are less known, and maybe less effective, though the gay-leaning husband of the McDormand character, played by Simon McBurney. And you can watch the movie just for the acting, and for some of the scenes, which are either powerful or funny in ways that make the other scenes, which are neither, worth waiting through. None of it is bad, so the people who give this a one star rating just didn't click with the slice-of-life aspect at work here.
For the best short summary of the plot and the characters and actors, check out the editorial review at Amazon for the DVD (better than wikipedia this time). Notice also the range of reviews by customers, from top to bottom. -
the cast of females was spectacular and the casting of the men, well done. all guys we recognize but not a soul to steal the attention.
that being said, the film was rudderless, no real direction, and no clear story to speak of. the style felt altman-ish to me in its blatant voyeuristic feel but without the complete character development.
we only culled bits and pieces of these women, stalking behaviours, neurosis, apathy and self destruction. but the ending left us with more questions than any conclusions.
cusack's husband spends her money, keener's husband doesn't ask 'OK hon?' when she bumps her knee (through the entire film) and mcdormand's hubby (the only truly likable character in the film) has what everyone thinks are homosexual tendencies,while she slides off the deep end with dirty hair and an attitude......OK? olivia lets the trainer take advantage of her, repeatedly, and then sleeps with a man (a nice man!) cause hes loaded!!!! call me crazy but i kinda like my stories with a beginning, middle and an end..............
what really gets me is that its classified as a 'comedy'???!!!