Romantic comedies often share common tropes, themes, and the same actors in different roles, but the two romantic comedies, also known as Twin films, replicate the same storyline. Released in 2011, No strings attachedWith Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, coming to theaters in January, and Friends with benefitsStarring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, was released six months later No strings attached In July. Although the two rom-coms share an identical plot depicting the conventional friends to lovers trap, both films also include differences to something distinctively separate each other, but one movie stood out more than the other.
No strings attached And Friends with benefits Explore two different friendships, as both pairs agree to a casual, physical relationship, omitting any emotional ties or serious commitments. The two romantic comedies perfectly mirror each other, depicting the same story about the complexities of navigating a non-committed relationship, but the only minimal differences are the characters, setting and character dynamics. The constant debate about Which rom-com is better essentially speaks for itself Featuring opposite Rotten Tomatoes scores, box office numbers and various reviews. Friends with benefits Meets the expectations of a well-constructed film, vi No strings attached Fails to satisfy viewers.
Friends with benefits was better received than no strings attached
Friends with benefits has a higher Rotten Tomatoes score
Friends with benefits Perfectly captured the tone and humor of a raunchy rom-com, Earning a better reception than No strings attached. Both films’ box office numbers worldwide nearly earned similar quantities, however Friends with benefits is considered a more preferred watch. No strings attached It premiered on January 21, 2011, grossing $149.2 million and a 47% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Friends with benefits Exceeded premiering on July 22, 2011, bringing in $149.5 million, earning a 69% score. Both romantic comedies are another addition to the twin film category, which includes other identical films with the same shared concept.
Related
Two films coexisting in the same year and sharing related stories is a common trend, as other films have experienced the same fate, including 2007’s. Knocked up And JunoHighlighting unexpected pregnancies, 2024s The first man And Immaculatereligious horror films, and 2006s The prestige And The illusion Revolved around magic, love and tragedy. Friends with benefits Received mixed reviews, but was considered more fun to watchPraises Timberlake’s and Kunis’ comedic performances. No strings attached Has its potential but was criticized for its haste and cheesy writing, indifferent to Friends with benefitsWhich continued to excel and meet the rom-com standards.
What friends with benefits is better than no strings attached
Friends with Benefits is a superior rom-com
Friends with benefits Effortlessly replace the characters Adam (Ashton Kutcher) and Emma (Natalie Portman) from the Ivan Reitman-directed No strings attached With leads that were more charismatic and amusing, delivering great comedic timing for an entertaining rom-com. No strings attached Failed to impress viewers Due to the lack of character development, humor and a predictable romantic storyline that fell flat. Friends with benefits is also predominantly set in New York, an ideal location for a romantic comedy, including iconic landmarks, Big Apple aesthetics, and flash mobs, which were relevant in 2011 and a fun addition to the film, later used as a romantic gesture by Dylan (Justin Timberlake).
The chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis was much more organic.
Friends with benefits is a well-rounded romantic comedy, In contrast to no strings attached, which underperformed. Friends with benefits Is the superior film due to funny material, stronger character dynamics, and believable chemistry between both leads. Although the stories are identical, Friends with benefits Has more engaging storylines revolving around Dylan and Jamie (Mila Kunis) first developing a friendship after both experiencing bad breakups, while also exploring the realistic, emotional complications of non-committed physical relationships. The chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis was much more organic and created a natural connection between their characters, which makes the film more watchable.