"Ted”, teddy bears & Peter Pans

Ted

It seemed a good option to change, quite radically, for the sort of movie I have been watching lately. Besides, a comedy that was advertised as “Family Guy” gets “flesh & bone” seemed a pretty interesting choice. I’m not the biggest fan of the show (in my opinion, it’s pretty disjointed and uneven), but I do admit it’s hilarious, irreverent (mocking about everything and everyone is a healthy thing imo) and surreal.

And ”Ted” is “Family Guy” or “American Dad” indeed. A nice attempt to make a movie that could mix realistic characters with that sort of brutally surreal and let’s admit it, really funny, impossible situations that are the show's trademark. Of course, the “Family Guy” most obvious factor is Ted, the teddy bear, a mix between Brian and Stewie Griffin from “Family Guy” and Roger from “American Dad”. Motion-capture animation has allowed Seth MacFarlane (creator of both shows) to take his recurrent character that “shouldn't behave like humans but behaves like one” to the next level.

With that being said, "Ted" is a story about growing up, a premise that is quite frequent on the so-called “New American comedy”. Along with our peculiar teddy bear, now we have John Bennett, played by Mark Wahlberg, who is basically a 35 years old guy with a spectacular Peter Pan’s syndrome. Go figure, his best friend still is a teddy bear. The story development is simple. John would need to do something with his life, also forced by his girlfriend, played by Mila Kunis, who wants their relationship to move on. But that would mean change his friendship-for-life relationship with Ted. And there the problems and crazy situations begin.

It is clear the story itself is not original, and some parts, in particular in what refers to some secondary roles and the “kidnapping” subplot, never achieve its promise and feel out of place. MacFarlane clearly keeps the focus on John and Lori, and how Ted’s seem to be in the middle of them. But the script survives thanks to the "heart" on the love-story between them, as the situations might be silly, unbelievable and “ridiculous”, but both Wahlberg and Kunis seem very real in the exposure of their feelings, and, of course, because of the amount of hilarious situations. Pop culture references, job seeking, celebrities cameos, violence, drug abuse, sex and profanity coming from the mouth and actions of the most adorable teddy bear. Surprisingly, all this mixture works quite well, conforming a film that looks more cohesive than expected. “Ted” is not a succession of sketches.

It shouldn’t be topping the best-of-the-year films, but with a doubt, its an irreverent and funny one, with amusing moments.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"Friends with Benefits", friendship, sex and clichés

Friends with Benefits

Dear film advertisers and people who write the synopsis on pages like imdb. Please stop lying. Allow me to use "Friends with Benefits" as an example.

While trying to avoid the clichés of Hollywood romantic comedies, Dylan and Jamie soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship does lead to complications. IMDB

That's simply a huge, ridiculous lie. "Friends with Benefits" has many weaknesses, but if I had to name just one, it would be precisely how predictable and unoriginal this is. To the point of being a pretty boring film, in particular in its second half.

Let's say it clear: sorry, but a movie with the premise of can men and women just be friends? is very far from being new. And that's what we have here. Two young persons, Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis), tired of disappointing relations, that start building a friendship. Then one day they start to have sex. Just sex (don't really get the buzz about the sex scenes) + plus friendship, they try to convince themselves. But, of course, that complicates everything. New? Umm... Well, no.

At least, for a while, although predictable or unsurprising, the film was easygoing and dynamic, with a lightweight, modern pace that could have been appealing if maintained longer. Being a romantic comedy, I would say that won't make you laugh that much, but at least it can entertain you. The problem is that pleasant part only lasts for a bit more than 30 minutes. The remaining hour and a half is just boring, no matter the "bundle" designed by director Will Gluck looks pretty or cool.

Despite the zero depth, there's nothing wrong to say to the actors, because in my opinion they are ok considering how lame is the material they have. There's chemistry between them, and when their dialogues are not forced, the movie flows, even with some charm (that happens in the aforementioned first 30 minutes of the film). But unfortunately, Timberlake and Kunis don't go further than their shallow roles. What really annoys me is the existence of characters so unfortunate as Dylan's father. Are the writers adding an illness just to have a serious, dramatic note on the film? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention how awful is misusing such a great actor as Richard Jenkins (same can be said about Patricia Clarkson). He is just an example of how badly used are the secondary roles, between blatant clichés (Dylan's sister, played by Jenna Elfman, his eccentric friend played by Woody Harrelson) and the plain silly (Bryan Greenberg's role).

Sure, "Friends with Benefits" is not awful or offensive. But is mediocre and unremarkable.

SCORE: 4/10