BIG SCREEN: Darling Companion Revieux (Rated PG-13)

Ever found yourself in a conversation with an adorable child or elderly person who talks in circles, but is so sweet and desperate for attention that you willingly indulge them? Well, that’s sort of how I felt watching Darling Companion.

Diane Keaton and Kevin Kline star as Beth and Joseph, a married couple with a bit of empty nest syndrome. Joseph is an uptight surgeon who has no patience for Beth’s high-strung disposition and emotional outbursts, so he’s especially annoyed when she rescues a dog, which becomes the light of her life. While marrying off their remaining single daughter (Elizabeth Moss) at their vacation home in the mountains, Joseph loses the dog during a walk in the woods. Naturally, this sends Beth into a tailspin, so everyone bands together to form a search party. This group includes Joseph’s crunchy granola sister, Penny (Dianne Wiest), her questionable new boyfriend, Russell (Richard Jenkins), Penny’s son Bryan (Mark Duplass), and a gypsy wedding coordinator named Carmen (Ayelet Zurer), who sends the group on countless wild goose chases, based on her “visions.”

Oh, not that it really matters, but the great Sam Shepard plays a not particularly interesting, bumbling sheriff.

As silly as it seems, this premise actually could’ve been a great vehicle for character development and conflict resolution. People wandering around the woods, contemplating life, being honest, facing challenges, learning through adversity, yada yada yada. And it seemed like it was going somewhere at first. But, alas, much like the gypsy’s visions, and a child's or elderly person’s ramblings, it really went nowhere.

Now I, personally, don’t think of the stellar cast as elderly – they’re actually some of my favorites -- but the script sort of treated them as such. It seems as though they were spoonfed bland, easily digestible roles, then sent off to scuttle about in the woods for a couple of days. It was sort of sweet, in a benign and syrupy way, but there were no… pancakes under all that syrup. Ugh, so who served us this plate of pancake-less syrup? That would be writer/director Lawrence Kasden, of The Big Chill and Raiders of the Lost Ark fame.

Say, what?

I’d like to blame Hollywood’s ageism for this waste of an amazing, albeit “mature” cast, but the fault, in my opinion, sits squarely on Kasden’s shoulders. He’s not only capable of more, but being that he’s a sextagenarian like the cast, you'd think he’d be more motivated to represent his peeps a little better. These people are still way too talented to be happy just to be seen. But I guess in Hollywood, it’s better to be patronized than totally ignored.

Sad.

BIG SCREEN: Friends with Benefits Revieux (Rated-R)

To me, Justin Timberlake is like frozen lemonade from a can. Is it enjoyable? Yeah, if you only take a tiny spoonful at a time. But, in larger doses, it certainly needs a whole lotta diluting to make it palatable.

JT’s skits on SNL? Great. Performances as a supporting actor in movies? Not too shabby. But, a leading man in a 94-minute romantic comedy? My brain puckered at the thought. (And Mila Kunis – forever the cloying Jackie from That 70s Show in my mind – wasn’t much more appetizing.) But, I’m a good sport. I was willing to give Friends with Benefits a shot.

Here’s the story… Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis) become platonic pals when she, an executive headhunter, recruits him to become GQ magazine’s new art director in New York. Fresh out of rotten relationships and unwilling to get entangled in new ones, they decide to attempt the impossible. (Normally, I would let the seemingly obvious title speak for itself. But, I’m going to assume not everyone knows what the phrase means, considering a pair of geniuses brought their 10-ish-year-old kid to the screening I attended. Let’s give ‘em the benefit of the doubt and assume they didn’t know it means, “people who have sex without romantic commitment.” Oy.)

Anyway, in an ironic little wink-wink, nudge-nudge to the audience, the two bond over their shared disdain for Hollywood romantic comedies. Aren’t they clever? But, as one would imagine, they soon discover that their seemingly simple relationship is fraught with complications all its own.

Feel like you’ve seen/heard this concept half-a-billion times? I thought the issue of can you/can’t you was settled by Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine Benes about 15 years ago. Early in the movie, I was not feeling confident they could pull this thing off – and a corny flash mob scene didn’t help. I think I actually groaned aloud. Uuuuuuuuuugh.

But, then came the first sex scene, and it was hy-ster-i-cal. Not an easy task. After a just-okay start, this sucker actually got a little traction and things really started rolling. Both actors not only prove they have solid comedic chops, but their chemistry (in both a comedic and romantic sense) is pretty powerful, too. Color me impressed, youngsters!

A couple of veteran actors up the ante even further. Patricia Clarkson (New Orleans girl!) plays Jamie’s free-spirited, free-love-advocating mom. Woody Harrelson plays Dylan’s highly gregarious gay coworker (a character that serves no real purpose in the plot, but is entertaining, nonetheless). Both turn in effervescent, scene-stealing performances that make you wish someone would cast them in bigger roles, for heaven’s sake. (Jenna Elfman and Richard Jenkins play Dylan’s sister and dad, and while they’re perfectly fine, they’re far less dynamic than the aforementioned.)

Is this movie groundbreaking territory? No way. Is it Woody-Allen-late-70s brilliant? Nope. But the dialogue is tight, the banter witty, the performances energetic. Despite my initial reservations, I actually found it kind of delightful. Like a refreshing glass of lemonade. Fresh squeezed. Minus the pucker.