Click For Photo: http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/friends-no-strings-attached-double-e1518623079412.jpg
Every week is “Love” week here at /Film, but in the spirit of Valentine’s Day this edition of Seeing Double is focusing on the most American representation of love possible – the romantic comedy. Some say it’s the most honest film genre there is while others call it poppycock of the heart, but there’s no denying the popularity of funny movies about love. Audiences and Hollywood alike just love seeing characters laugh and kiss their way to a happy ending.
2011 saw two high-profile rom-coms hit theater screens just six months apart, both centered on an identical premise, and both starring a cast member from Black Swan and That ’70s Show. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? Impossible to believe even? But it’s true, I swear. As insane as it sounds, though, there’s an even bigger mystery surrounding No Strings Attached and Friends Without Benefits. In the seven years since their release, no one’s ever felt 100% confident identifying which romantic pairing of popular young actors is in which film without a quick IMDB search.
Confusion - Reading - No - Strings - Attached
That confusion ends now. Keep reading as we put No Strings Attached and Friends Without Benefits head-to-head and end this madness once and for all.
Two attractive young people meet, become vaguely friendly, and have some of the sex. Neither he nor she want anything to do with a relationship – too much hassle, too much risk of heartbreak – and instead they’re struck with inspiration. Why marry the milk when you can bump uglies with the cow for free? For those of you unfamiliar with that very common saying, the acquaintances-turned-friends in both films decide to have fun fornicating without the complication of emotions, jealousies, and other dramas that come with relationships. Love has other plans, though, and try as they might, their hearts start getting in the way...
(Excerpt) Read more at: /Film
Wake Up To Breaking News!
Drove my Ford to the fjord, but the fjord was dry. . .