Hi everyone,

I came across a review of my film "Friends with Benefits" that was posted on a messageboard at my site. I hate to give free publicity to the site, but it's a very funny visual.

http://goodbad.kbx81.net/

The reviewed manages to bash me while praising parts of the film at the same time, while also confusing the film characters' personalities with the author's personality. Well, you be the judge for yourself.

When you're finished, feel free to watch the film for yourself at friendswithbenefits.com .

Happy Holidays everyone!

-Patrick

I dunno, I thought the review was consistent and knowledgable. I agree with a lot of what it had to say, although I don't think the movie gives college movies a bad name.

And I have to say, I think your assesment of his review is wrong. The reviewer doesn't bash you. He criticizes the script, cinematography, and director's handling of the actors, but I didn't see any personal attacks against you in the review. Against some of the actresses perhaps, but not you.

Also, you got his praising wrong. He doesn't praise the movie at all. The only props he gives are to two of the actors. I think he was impressed they overcame the material.

Now I didn't have a problem with the performances or cinematography, they're what I've come to expect from low budget movies. Unlike the reviewer I do think you need to lower your standards when you watch something made with a small budget and limited resources.

But I thought the story and dialogue were weak and boring so I disliked the movie. Not as much as the reviewer though. I'd only give it 2 angry Shatners.

I wouldn't feal bad at ALL... those people think Lord Of The Rings is good.... HA!... I'd actually take their opinion as a compliment.

We understand you don't like LOTR.

We can't stop here, it's bat country!

I hate to defend my movie like this, and dissect part of a review, but I will for ActionRanger. Theh reviwer does bash me, saying I let the characters "flounder." I will use this segment as an example:

"Dan Schankel as JT is just irritating. Clunking out lines like 'Damn right I'd bang her' and trying his pathetic best to be funny, he never seems to know what to do with his hands. The script seems to be trying to set him somewhere between Van Wilder and Mallrat's Brodie, but doesn't have Wilder's crude charm or the depth of Jason Lee. He does have a scene with Jessie, where he tries to be sincere and suprisingly hits it dead on.

Hence, I'm going to pin his failures on the director, Patrick Buonincontri who also wrote Friends With Benefits and lets his actors flounder."

These two paragraphs alone demonstrate that the reviewer neither understands the purpose of the character, nor the purpose of much of the film itself. Not everyone will get the point. But here's the reason the review is thematically off.

JT puts on a facade. He displays no depth for 90% of his scenes. That's how the scenes were written, and that's how they were directed, and that's the whole damn point. JT was written to parody/lampoon every *******/moron who simply views girls as objects. Whether he used to be a nice guy at one point or not is irrelevant for most the story. The fact is he no longer knows how to display sincerity towards girls, rather is only now a typical "frat boy" in his personality, and actions. He's not supposed to have much "depth" on the surface, and the only "charm" he displays is only when trying to impress girls. Again, that's the point. In my opinion, you are supposed to laugh not only at his speech, but the fact that he even has the *gall* to even say the things he does, in the ways he does. His lines are not written just to try and be "hip." They are written that way to reflect more on the shallow personality forcing out those lines.

Therefore, the entire point of the JT/Jessie scene, a scene the reviewer likes, is to show the struggle JT goes through in order to try and be sincere for once, since he has little idea of how to do it. He hits it "dead on" because that's how he was directed to be in that scene, and that's how it was written. Likewise he was directed to be an idiot in all the others, because that was how the character was written for those scenes. That one scene was not a random performance by Dan Schankel. By that alone, the reviewer shows they do not understand the relationship between an actor's performance and the direction it is based upon.

One more example.
"He (Toby) also has some genuinely sweet moments with Jessica." Yes, and for the reviewer I'm sure that had absolutely nothing to do with any writing or direction. The reviewer forgets that sweet moments are not conjured out of thin air. Overcoming material you say? The Jessie/Toby scenes are the serious/"sweet" scenes, and were written as such. That's why they were genuine, and that's why they were sweet. Not *solely* because of the actors, although Jeff and Kim did excellent jobs. It's not like they were given crude material. The "crude material" was left mostly to JT and Kim's characters, since they were the more shallow characters to begin with. Toby and Jessie are the more mature characters to counterbalance them. They are the more dramatic half of the story. It's not like their scenes were written to be idiot and they magically their performances changed the entire tone of the scenes. That's how they were written, and that's how they were directed. To think they "overcame material" is insulting on so many levels, and belies that there was any sort of

Toby and Jessie were written to be more "real" and compassionate than their counterparts, JT and Kim. Toby and Jessie represent the rationale of trying to break through in an environment where hooking up defines both your self esteem and lack of relationship goals. Kim, JT, and Debbie are those trapped in their shallow college hookup world, and therefore, are shallow themselves. These characters came from my world, and they were all real. Toby was based on many experiences I had, where I was trying to break out and start relationships, but was still stuck in "hookup mode." This is the reason Costanzo as Toby is forced to say "awful lines," because he not totally separated from the ******* types, like JT. This is how I was for a period, as well. Girls like Kim and Debbie were the shallow types trying to weigh me down, and keep me from evolving. Girls like Jessie were the one I was willing to take a chance with, because they were different, and to me, three dimensional.

Overcoming material, you say? There's slightly more there than you think. At least, there was when I wrote it .

- Patrick

I dont think its unreasonable to pin poor acting on the director. While the review was certainly scathing, I really dont see it as a personal bash. It was simply a negative review and of course in a negative review the director is gonna come off pretty bad. Ive had some of my films reviewed on this site that have actually attacked my character and not me as a director. Consider yourself lucky! Also, quit while you're ahead- theres no need to be defending your movie like this- you made it, now live with whatever people dont like about it and just say "screw-em". Good luck!

Daydreamer Films

What are they doing comparing LOTR to anything put a pile of dog crap? I havent seen it, but then again I havent seen your film either. So it's free game and Im not very oppinionated on this particular issue.Judging by the posters, Lord of the Rings looks more like the sequel to galaxy quest.

Exhibit A:

vs.
Exhibit B:


Why anyone would make a sequel to Galaxy Quest is beyond me.

Where as your poster:
Exhibit Q:

vs.
Exhibit R:
\

Honestly Id much rather see your film then the sequel to galexy quest (Based on the poster that is) In fact, it looks like I'll love your movie. Where can I see it?

please lemme know. spnsr_12@hotmail.com

Who cares what they think. Film is an awesome power. You can make southern black men feel like northern black women. That is the power of Cinema. I just hope this film will someday make me feel like I too, have "Friends With Benefits"

quote:

---

Originally posted by waylayer:


These two paragraphs alone demonstrate that the reviewer neither understands the purpose of the character, nor the purpose of much of the film itself.

---

It is not the viewers responsibility to "get it". As a director, the responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders to show the motivations of a character. If a reviewer finds this unclear, it is a failure on your part in writing/directing the character, not his for not being a psychic.

I read the review as well, and I think that actionranger is correct by saying it doesn't personally attack you. I think it points out the flaws of the film in a fair and honest matter.

---

"yesterday i got so old i thought that i would die"

I'm a fan of "Friends with Benefits." Yes, it's not perfect (some of the technical qualities makes me cringe), but I like it for what it is. I bought the DVD and have watched it several times. I'm sure Patrick's films will get better and better. While he may not know what a LongShot or a close-up is yet (sorry, a little jab ), he does understand fundamental storytelling much better than many other filmmakers here (myself included).

And I would agree that you should never try to explain your films to someone who doesn't get them. It's a lose/lose situation. Just thank them for watching and move on.

let me know when the FwB special edition DVD comes out and I'll review it .

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPENSER:
What are they doing comparing LOTR to anything put a pile of dog crap? I havent seen it... Judging by the posters, Lord of the Rings looks more like the sequel to galaxy quest.

---

You haevnt seen them? And you call yourself a film maker....

Truth is i hate "fantasy" both in books and film form but these aspire to so much more. Simply from a technical and cinematic point of view these films should be required viewing even if its with the sound off. (Though the sound design is incredible so that would suck) Might want to give them a look see.
R. Michael

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans
Tizzy Entertainment "Redemption" Hi-Def trailer

quote:

---

While he may not know what a LongShot or a close-up is yet (sorry, a little jab

let me know when the FwB special edition DVD comes out and I'll review it .

---

Hey Joren...there's a reason it's the ONLY EDITION (well, it will be until the current supply runs out, which will probably be in 2009).

Closeup Schlomup. I was lucky I pulled off the "focused Shot," or even the "didn't crop off the head Shot" . But alas, there are some closeups in the my next two outings, a somewhat disturbing company video I shot (which may have lead to my eventual firing), and a short film that I'm currently editing. I'll put the company video online soon, so you can judge for yourself.

As for those who think the review is "fair and balanced," keep in mind that above the actual review there was a MIDDLE FINGER, and that the slogan of the site is to "bring you the best and the worst." Obviously the review was set out to be objective from the start. And while we're in fantasyland, I might as well say that I know how to effectively light an indoor scene. Both are insane thoughts.

Another insane (but true) thought...I just sold another DVD. Who would be dumb enough to buy this garbage (besides Joren)?

srry dude...

but you didnt even de-interlace the footage.
the opening didnt hook me, or my 2 friends..
if you cant hook the audience, then maybe you
should re-think your story, or the way you open it.
the acting was sketch, and you could have worked on lighting...

looks like you just picked up a camera and followed people around...

im not going to bash you and then give no reason, like i said above...

work on ways to make your story better, and lighting...even the cheap solutions make all the difference in the world...

and DE-INTERLACE YOUR FOOTAGE MAN!
that is one of the biggest mistakes n00bs make...

anyways, if this was your first movie, then it wasn't that bad...

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.MICHAEL:
srry dude...

but you didnt even de-interlace the footage.
the opening didnt hook me, or my 2 friends..
if you cant hook the audience, then maybe you
should re-think your story, or the way you open it.
the acting was sketch, and you could have worked on lighting...

looks like you just picked up a camera and followed people around...

im not going to bash you and then give no reason, like i said above...

work on ways to make your story better, and lighting...even the cheap solutions make all the difference in the world...

and DE-INTERLACE YOUR FOOTAGE MAN!
that is one of the biggest mistakes n00bs make...

anyways, if this was your first movie, then it wasn't that bad...

---

Another glowing endorsement!

1

This message has been edited. Last edited by: joshmcclain,