Watch Friends with Money For Free

Pretty Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The title serves as the film's warning: this is about rich people with rich-people-problems. Three girlfriends have all of life's advantages, but still they're unhappy. Frances McDormand, in a frighteningly realistic performance, is angry at unfairness in the world. Joan Cusack is afraid her grammar school son might be gay. Catherine Keener bickers with her husband. To less affluent moviegoers, these couples seem impossible to relate to. Enter the fourth friend: a low-class housecleaner who smokes pot, steals expensive moisturizer for self-pedicures, and calls her married ex-lover at home. Believe it or not, that fourth friend is played by Jennifer Aniston, who gives a surprisingly good performance.Through Aniston's character, audiences are given permission to resent the wealthy Friends with Money, and at the same time, wonder what problems they might have if they belonged to that echelon. This is not an uplifting movie, and if you're already in a depressed mood, I wouldn't really recommend it. However, I own this movie, so I obviously like it enough to watch it over and over. Give it a try, when you're not already terribly blue, and see if you like it.

Here is another female-helmed movie without point or rhyme or reason. The director gets a few characters together and puts them in situations where they do what they do without ever coming to any kind of realisation about anything, or any sort of climax or resolution. These movies are watchable but forgettable.This is the one with Jennifer Aniston, who seems much younger than her circle of friends played by - who else - Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, Joan Cusack. They have husbands who are barely glimpsed except for one Roman Polanski doppelganger whom everyone thinks is gay. The movie suggests maybe he is... or isn't. It's never resolved, and you find yourself wondering what the point is.Aniston quits her job and becomes a maid for what must be a greatly reduced pay scale in order to justify the movie's title. However the central theme of her making less money than her friends is also totally undercooked and not explored in any meaningful way. If it wasn't called "Friends with money" you'd probably not even notice that that was intended to be the theme of the movie. What sticks out far more is Aniston's relative youth and beauty in contrast to her well off yet miserable, unhappily married friends, as women always are in movies like this. It hurts to say she was miscast however, because she is the movie's only source of life.

This film does have things going for it. The production values are high, the cast is impeccable - Joan Cusack, Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener to name a few. And I guess the format of a group of mature age friends living suburban lives is valid. Many French films are based on such ensembles. But I found that there is way, way, too much dialogue in Friends With Money. Characters have to express every little feeling they have, and just about every character has a scene with every other character in which to discuss every detail of their lives, and of their friends' lives. And also the plot is weak -- a group of friends who are rich have a single friend who is working as a maid. Well, how exciting. The movie Spanglish with Adam Sandler covered some of the same territory. In that case a Hispanic maid comes with her daughter to live with a rich LA family. But Spanglish had more passion, more interesting twists and turns. Spanglish was about the maid's genuine wish for her daughter not to be swallowed up by this family who were so generous to her. Friends With Money means well, but I didn't warm to it.

"What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? You're probably thinking of words like s**t, w***e, b***h, c**t, s**k. Okay, now, what are the worst things you can call a guy? F**, girl, b***h, p***y. I've even heard the term 'm*****a'. Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl. The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that's not royally f****d up." - Jessica Valenti"Women are nothing but machines for producing children." - Napoleon There aren't many female directors who manage to command a global film release. Kathryn Bigelow does, but then she essentially makes big action movies. Meanwhile, "smaller" female directors like Jane Campion, Claire Denis and Kelly Reichardt go unknown. Recent polls even suggest a sharp decline in the number of working female film directors over the past 20 years, at least in Hollywood. In Europe, the opposite seems to be true, though again few flock to see their films. Catherine Breillat's stopped scaring audiences and started scaring financiers.So Nicole Holofcener is a bit of an anomaly. She's not necessary a good director, but she's a woman, and her films, which are almost all romantic dramedies and/or light satires, do enough to differentiate her from other genre film-makers. Perhaps Holofcener's best film, though perhaps also her most unintentionally sinister, "Lovely and Amazing" tracks the lives of several women (a mother, 2 daughters and an adopted daughter), all of whom suffer from various inferiority complexes. Most of these self-esteem issues stem from anxieties regarding self image, masculine expectations, and racial or class based insecurities. So one character feels shameful for being black, another for being overweight, another for ageing, another for not being "sexy", another for not having a job etc. Some characters, as is typical of Holofcener's films, are even guilty/insecure because they're "better" than others, either financially or physically. The film does well to present "real" women, complete with desires, insecurities, hangups and neuroses. Holofcener's cast eschew flattering lighting and make up, her script is consistently funny and/or riveting, and the film contains a number of powerful moments, like one incident in which a woman's body is frankly judged by her lover, and another in which we learn that a depressed kid has been secretly drowning her sorrows at a local fast food joint. Unfortunately things take a dubious turn in "Lovely and Amazing's" final act. The film initially portrays its men in a quite cynical light – they're all judgemental, distant and aloof - and recognises that its female characters are anxious precisely because they define themselves via the gaze of the Male Other, or, in some cases, even other women. But when our female characters then assert their independence, break free from a certain patriarchal thumb or even claim the Male Gaze for themselves, they're swiftly and severely punished (physical disfigurements, rape charges, desexualization etc) by Holofcener. To demand power and the transaction of the gaze is to risk destruction. The film then suggests that the only way to successfully remove oneself from the gaze, from being forced to define oneself in the eyes of another's desires, is to remove oneself totally from all sexuality. In this regard the film ends with our women secluded, asexual, disfigured and back in their ancestral home; 3 lost, desexualised daughters under the eye of a matriarch. Whether Holofcener's being unintentionally reactionary or intentionally critical, is unknown.More conventional is Holofcener's "Friends With Money", which plays like a sprawling, inferior version of her later film, "Please Give". Here the plot centres on several loosely connected friends, all with their own foibles. One subplot involves a woman going through an angry midlife crisis, another involves a husband who may or may not be gay, another involves several women who are either jealous of their own wealth or ashamed of their poverty, whilst another involves a woman struggling with her increasingly distant husband. As with most of Holofcener's film, two themes are given prominence. The first is the question of how one is able to be an agent of compassion in a social system in which individual self interest is given primacy, the second is a subplot in which a woman's artistic passions are repeatedly crushed by financial necessities. The radiant Catherine Keener stars in both films. Emiley Mortimer gives a brave performance in "Lovely and Amazing". Despite being "about women", both films are resoundingly male-centric, womanhood defined entirely by one's relationship to men.8/10 - Worth one viewing.