Friends with Money

2006 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.

Friends 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.

What a rare delight - to see four talented actresses rising to the challenge of such a smart script. With each additional interesting project that she accepts, Jennifer Aniston edges away from the baggage of that daft and shallow TV show upon which she built her name. Frances McDormand, as a wife undergoing an existential crisis, is grittily beautiful and 100% believable.

I doubt whether most twenty-somethings will find much with which to connect in this film; in fact the message boards seem to indicate that they're hankering for a 'plot' ("Wot? No murder?"). Having said that, younger viewers with decent attention spans whose tastes tend toward more stimulating, 'art house' fare, might well feel rewarded.

The movie's characters are real people with real issues; issues which aren't necessarily wrapped up neatly and tied with a bow by the end of the movie, as is the case in most sitcoms. Their issues are recognisably human, and not the standard, manufactured, Politically Correct ones, such as those didactic "gender issues" that are so frequently wheeled out in mainstream Hollywood movies. (How dull that could've been...)

Furthermore, rather than serve up a neat 'Beginning, Middle & End', the film gives us a sense that the characters' lives and issues continue beyond the scope of the film, and that we've simply been privy to a slice of their timeline.

The dialogue, which crackles like a pine-cone in a blazing fire, is also worthy of being singled out for praise. While the film isn't a comedy, it boasts some wicked, laugh-out-loud lines. This is a beautiful, sad, funny, and engaging drama for discerning audiences. Bravo, Nicole Holofcener!

"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.

Not 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").