What terrible writing. Natalie Portman is in this? Is this just her further trying to distance herself from her good-girl image? Or is just a paycheck movie?
Who writes this crap?
If I had to guess, it’s that the movie starred a female character who was strong, successful, individualistic, neither the virgin nor the whore, and who wouldn’t set feminism back fifty years a la Katherine Heigl in The Ugly Truth. And she wanted to support an emerging female writer. And she wanted to show range beyond her “serious movie” niche.”
Not saying it’ll be a good movie necessarily, but understandable why it seemed attractive.
Michael, that’s a very charitable reading of Natalie Portman’s intentions (I too am a NP fan) — but let me say that I don’t think there’s a bona fide movie star on the planet who pays even a passing fart’s thought as to what impact their choice of roles may have on a young writer’s career (unless that writer is a spouse or child, and sometimes not even then).
Ha, fair enough. But I’ve heard her talk about strong/realistic female roles on numerous occasions, so all the other reasons stand.
Liz Meriwether wrote it. Script is great. You should take a look.
“Liz Meriwether wrote it. Script is great. You should take a look.”
Cop Out and a few other horrible movies were on that list as well. For Liz and Co. to try and spin this like, Oh, Ivan Reitman messed up our movie, that’s unfair.
The script was called FBuddies. The only way to go was down. They didn’t ruin the script for Remains of the Day. They ruined it for FBuddies.
Next she’ll be complaining that Honey Pot and Big Boobs was bastardized by an old man. Ivan Reitman is a God in this town.
@really: Liz Meriweather wrote this ‘crap,’ which happened to place 6th out of the top ten of 2008’s Black List when it was titled Fuckbuddies. Hm. Meaningless list, or..?
Really? A movie about having sex with no strings attached? I realize this is no new concept, but seriously, studios must really be digging for material. This movie sounds downright awful.
I have a serious question:
Can Natalie Portman act? I mean, when was the last time anyone raved about her performance? She lands all these rolls and is an A-lister but…. is there a reason?
First, you must not have been hearing the buzz from screenings of Black Swan.
Second, since when has being a co-lead with Ashton Kutcher been an “A-lister role”?
You’re dumb. BLACK SWAN. Pending Oscar nod.
Get real. One buzzed-about movie? Let’s see if she wins it first.
Until then…this joint is crap. Kutcher is D-list garbage famous only for his wife.
Portman’s tour de force was…what? V For Vendetta? Closer? That wasn’t really her movie.
Face it, she’s got more image and hype than genuine substantial work behind her.
Oh my bad haven’t seen it yet sorry
GOOD actress, hot, Jewish… c’mon, gotta give us one!
You’re right, we’ll give you this one. Jewish people have such a hard time in Hollywood.
this script was horrible. hope reitman managed to salvage something from it.
It really is beneath him.
When will a studio exec in this town finally say, “Maybe we shouldn’t greenlight a movie starring Ashton Kutcher.” Natalie Portman looks hot in this, and she is always watchable. The film itself looks like a dumbed down version of “500 Days of Summer”, and the trailer itself shows no signs of any depth. Major pass.
well, at least I have a new answer to the question of two people I would not want to see in a romantic comedy together.
aka ‘No Brains Involved’.
No interest attached
LOL. Why would anyone see a movie starring Ashton Kutcher? Answer: they wouldn’t.
Why did this get so many votes on The Black List when it was called F-Buddies?
This is terrible writing. Am I wrong? Who wrote this?
Actually, the spec was very funny, laugh out loud clever. But the trailer is absolute crap. Just goes to show you, they started with “Fuckbuddies” and they turned it into “No Strings Attached”, i.e., something cool and fun into something tepid and vanilla.
Liz Meriwether. She’s a playwright who went to Yale and apparently learned nothing. Her writing is really, really bad.
This will ruin her chances of winning the Oscar and will be exactly what Bening needs to take home the award.
This could totally Norbit her Oscar chances.
This might be her version of Anne Hathaway’s Bride Wars and whatever that bad movie Eddie Murphey was in right before Oscars (both were in good shape before and then lost). She should try and have this pushed back to April.
Liz Meriwether’s script was an awesome read, full of voice. This trailer feels like it got seriously watered down.
And then there’s Ashton… ugh.
Exactly. This is just the latest example of a solid, if not totally commercial script, being warped into something bland and contrived. The contrast between F’Buddies and this trailer is shocking.
Full of voice? As much as good scripts get destroyed in the development process, this isn’t one of them.
You’re going to say they didn’t elevate the material — something called F*$&BUDDIES?
Hint — if the writer had any genuine talent, they wouldn’t have made this crap out of what was on the page. You can mess up a British period piece — but you can’t turn it into this crap.
This goes on the writer.
So what is up with the trend of trailers basically opening with AN ENTIRE scene from the movie — what is this supposed to be, a sampling platter? You like this scene, you’ll like the movie? It’s a terrible approach.
Basically this looks like studio-fied mumblecore (even including Greta Gerwig!) rehashing EVERY “can guys and girls just be friends?” scene from every romcom ever done before.
“Did you have sex with Emma?”
Wow. I guess that passes for writing these days.
And finally, new rules: no more women named “Emma” in romcoms. It’s Stale RomCom writing 101: take whatever baby name is most popular at any given time, and make THAT your lead character’s name. Yawn.
And along with that, please no more women characters who own their own bakeries or floral shops or men who are architects or ad execs. End of new rules.
Why is this a “hot trailer?” It looks awful. If you’re going to run free ads for the studios (at least I assume they are free), don’t take it a step further by saying everything is a “hot trailer.” Just say, crappy trailer. At least be honest.
I get the impression that this site calls any newly released trailer a “hot” trailer. Sort of like “hot off the presses”. I don’t think it means the site is saying the trailer or the film is good or bad.
This is film is an attempt for both actors to gradually change the public’s perception of them.
Natalie Portman is always seen as a “serious” actress, too serious in fact, and not seen as a “fun” or “sexual” actress in any which way. Kutcher does not appeal to men (much like why Matthew McConaughey can’t open a movie), and even though he was fantastic on ‘That 70s Show’, once Ashton became the heartthrob of teen girls and women alike, men were turned off by him. He began a string of awful romantic comedies that were made to appeal solely to women, and along with his trucker-hat-punkd-i’m-cooler-than-you phase, completely ostracized his male fans.
I see him taking another attempt at a romantic comedy because 1. he was convinced by Valentine’s Day’s box office gross that he played a part in it’s success (though ‘Killers’ proves otherwise), and 2. Working with Portman could make folks think the movie is more than just fluff. Meanwhile, as stated before and now restated with the Kutcher factor in mind, Portman is using his image to actually rub off on her Ms. Super Serious image a bit.
Love And Other Drugs , Part II. But, Anne Hathaway & Jake Gyllenhaal have much better chemistry than Ashton Kutcher & Natalie Portman.
The draft I read was incredibly charming and the dialogue great. Was there some icky production polish that was done? Because the dialogue in the trailer has none of the wit or snap of what I read.
The original draft was terrible. Bottom of the first page, she’s explaning TLC’S “No Scrubs.”
“She’s saying she doesn’t want no scrubs, hanging from the passenger side of his best friend’s ride.”
Why do terrible pop culture references take the place of actual well-written, witty, original dialogue? What happened to wordplay?
That’s why people love Sorkin. Granted, no one can be Sorkin, but this Liz Meriwether is supposed to be a big-time writer.
Yes, I’m jealous. I would also be embarrassed to put my name on this.
Oh my god the dialogue in the sex scenes is even worse.
“You’re blowing me! That’s great!”
I’m not even exaggerating. That’s in the script. How the hell does she have a career?
This was a fantastic script. There could not have been a worse director on the planet to tackle this subject matter than a 70 year old man who has not directed a good movie in 20 years. Then casting Ashton Kutcher who might have 2 billion twitter followers but has nobody who wants to see him in a movie. Another example of a great script ruined by horrible producing and bad choices by a studio. This should have been a mandate movie directed by somebody like Jonathan Levine or somebody who has actually had sex or been on a date after tReagan was in office. Todd Phillips and Judd Apatow are making the best studio comedies and neither one of them would take a general meeting with Ashton Kutcher.
The original script to this was overrated and not good, or someone better would have done it.
“If it were good enough to be a Mandate movie, it would have been a Mandate movie.”
Flush this one. Is there a couple that seems less plausible than Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman? Maybe Colin Firth and Tara Reid. Although that at least sounds interesting.
I would rather see Mel Gibson in the lead role than Ashton.
Hot where? Hell? Ashton is one of the great mysteries of the world to me. Although I have to tell all of you that SPREAD (his “deep,” vanity Indie flick) is one of the best unintentional comedies ever. You’ll probably laugh more watching it then you will at DUE DATE.
this movie looks terrible, which is why it’s being released in January. total fail.
Is this a Natalie Portman movie that Ashton Kutcher snuck into? Or is Natalie Portman slumming it in an Ashton Kutcher movie? It’s so confusing it’s practically post-modern.
That zany whippersnapper Ashton Kutcher, the chick from those awesome new Star Wars prequels, and Casual F**k-buddies as a hot-button social topic. Welcome to 2003.
How on earth does Ashton Kutcher get film roles?
He is just god awful in every way. He never has any chemistry with his love interest.
It’s like he is asexual and don’t get me started on his usual everything is funny mannerisms that just takes him out of any scene he is in.
Ashton needs to stick to producing reality shows like “Punked.”
That is right down his talent level.
I feel sorry for Natalie Portman for being in this movie. Why?
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 543 other followers