Friends With Benefits vs No Strings Attached

In very quick succession last year, movie goers were treated with two very similar movies about casual sex. First we had February’s No Strings Attached starring Natalie Portman as a highly strung doctor who embarks upon a ‘relationship’ with script writer Ashton Kutcher. Then there was September’s Friends With Benefits which chronicled headhunter Mila Kunis’ bond with Justin Timberlake in New York City.

We’re going to highlight the fact that, unless you dig rom coms like this, there is no need to watch both. So which one do you go for? For us, the answer is clear – but to prove why we favour one over the other, here’s a movie show down!

THE LEADING LADY

NATALIE PORTMAN vs MILA KUNIS

Both very attractive ladies, but Mila has the edge. Not even the edge. She wins by a mile. For starters it's hard to believe that Natalie Portman would embark upon such frivolous behaviour in the first place, but generally the role doesn't sit too well with her: Mila is far more at ease and funnier too.

THE LEADING MAN

ASHTON KUTCHER vs JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE

This one was a lot harder to call, namely because both men are equally good in the films. However Ashton may just have it because he has more comedy moments than Justin.

Friends With Benefits has best female, and No Strings Attached has the best male. So which film in better? Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Friends With Benefits is significantly more funny, hipper, less cringeworthy, and although no less predictable, it's all together more entertaining. Also the cast is much more impressive in F.W.B - Emma Stone and Woody Harrelson are hilarious. Next time your scrolling through Sky Movies, opt for Friends With Benefits as it has won the battle against No Strings Attached.

1.

2.

Have your say: do you think this verdict is fair or would you have gone the other way? We'd love to hear your comments below!