BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

stwmby The worst film I've ever had to sit through? Well, it's up there with the worst.An unpleasant, shallow film about unpleasant shallow people living miserable lives.This film goes nowhere; it has no plot to speak of, other than to depict the desperately sad marriages of a group of spoilt shallow Americans. Aren't films supposed to entertain? This piece of miserable rubbish certainly didn't. The only thing I got from this mess was a better understanding of why Jennifer Anniston no longer gets any decent film roles.A pointless piece of self-indulgent garbage. Avoid.

Victor I didn't have high expectations after reading some reviews, but I found this pleasantly charming. It's fair to compare it to a Woody Allen picture, with a host of characters all worrying about themselves, or how they appear to others.The stories of each couple don't run the gamut of human experience and are well within the boundaries of middle-class concerns, but this is no bad thing. It makes friends more believable as they begin to question why they even like each other, which is a feature of long-term friendship that tends to crop up in comedy-dramas like this.The script is subtle and the acting above par throughout, by the whole cast (I thought Aniston was on top form as a likable slacker - she makes her mark against the other, more experienced, female leads).This is a story about the ebb and flow of life, rather than a film about extreme ups and downs. As such, it's much more of a filmed play than a cinematic experience, so I can understand if it didn't really work in a theatre, but it certainly works on DVD as it feels a lot more intimate.Definitely worth a watch.

simona gianotti Choral movies are quite fashionable nowadays, probably because attractive by themselves. Obviously, the risk with them lies in the difficulty and sometimes the failure in giving the right time and equal space to each character, ending up in disregarding some of them in favour of others. This risk is unfortunately evident in "Friends with money", where some characters and situations live and appear as well rounded, whereas others are totally failed and appear as marginal and not sufficiently developed. In general, I noticed that all the stories involving the married couples are quite secondary in respect to Olivia's single life and his encounters with two men. Indeed, Jane, very well interpreted by Frances Macdormand, is the only married woman who manages to be convincing in her middle-forties' crisis and depression, while Christine and Franny appear as immature women, lacking some definite personality and remaining a little annoying till the end. As far as male characters are concerned, the three married ones are completely out of place, I would say useless, being the few words they speak so poor, so marginal, that one may ask why their roles were not cut off. On the contrary, the roles of Mikes and Marty, Olivia's two boyfriends, are more focused, becoming the allegorical representation of two male prototypes: the roguish who exploits women, the first one, and the kind, delicate, sensitive, the latter. Marty in particular, despite his very short appearance, proves to be the most rounded, developed and realistic character, with whom we cannot but sympathize and interpret as a redemption for the male gender and the just reward for a former exploited woman. Jennifer Aniston, usually tied to clichè roles and characters, surprisingly offers a good and credible performance, being probably Olivia's concerns the nearest to the life of common people. In the end, the movie started with a good idea, lost it in progress, and gained interest with the appearance of Marty's character. The final result is a pleasant, but sometimes superficial and banal romance-drama that does not get to leave the viewer fully satisfied.

JasparLamarCrabb A stinging portrait of four friends fueled by enough angst to bring down even the most self-assured feminist. Writer/director Nicole Holofcener shows various sides of what is essentially the same woman using Jennifer Aniston, Joan Cusack, Catherine Keener and Frances McDormand as her pawns. Aniston is the loser of the group, with delusions of becoming a personal trainer (stepping up from her house cleaning job) and Cusack is the group's wealthy dowager. In between, there's McDormand and Keener, each clinging to decidedly precarious marriages. The actresses are fine with Aniston maintaining the indie cred she captured via THE GOOD GIRL. Keener is terrific as one part of a screen writing couple who blows a hole in her marriage by pointing out her husband's bad breath (it's one of the film's most uncomfortable confrontation and this is a movie with MANY confrontations). McDormand is almost comic as the woman on the verge whose husband may or may not be what he seems...or may be exactly what he seems to everyone else. It's all too shallow to be truly compelling.