Enjoyable, funny, but doesn't really seem to go beyond inspiring a feeling of "yeah, I know somebody like that...".

Not everyone's cup of tea, no doubt, but I loved it. Excellent, thoroughly drawn characters and witty, 100% realistic dialog. These are people we all know--if we're over 40. I think the detractors from this film are gen X-ers; and I understand why. They haven't dealt with working so hard to achieve their goals...and succeeding. When the goal is reached, a confused emptiness can result. That's what makes this film so haunting. We step into 4 typical lives, and step out 90 minutes later. Like life, there are no answers, no resolutions. A great cast, particularly Frances McDormand and Catherine Keener, make this film highly watchable, and bring their complex characters to life.… Expand

I thought this story took a wonderful look at the friendships between each of the characters. By far this is Nicole Holofcener's best film yet.

I ran off to a matinee based on the LA Times review, and what a disappointment. That critic must be on the payroll or something to compare Holofcener to Jane Austen. Austen's work is piercing, deeply observant, funny and literate. This work had a few apt perceptions, and that was it. The women were completely unlikeable, I had no idea why they were friends and didn't care about any of them. Does this sound like Jane Austen?… Expand

This movie was absolutely awful. I'm mystified why it received some positive reviews. I know not every movie has a positive resolution or has to say something, but what this movie implies is a load of crap. Truly nonsensical.

This is really a terrible film. All the women look haggard from being 2 skinny (esp. Joan Cusak). Except for Frances Mc's hubby, no one is the least bit likeable. Lots of middle-class angst. Jennifer A is so the same as Friends/office space/good girl. I vote this group the one I would least like to share a table at a fundraiser with. Yuk-o

The worst film of the year. Characters that are boring, dialogue that is boring. What can I say, it is boring. Thank the movie gods that it was only 88 minutes.

Extremely Boring! The story never came together, it was looking into the lives of four people, but so what? The ending is horrible because it doesn't really end, you are still left wondering about the lives of four people. What a waste of talent, and my time.

Yep it's not all nicely resolved at the end. I wanted to know more. And I fugre that, if I'm left feeling that way at the end of a movie, then it hasn't been at all bad.

A boring waste of actors' talent and viewers' time. The film is dismal and incoherent.

Disappointing. Of the 4 main couples or 8 people, 6 are unlikable. Do you want to spend 90 minutes with 6 annoying people?

The most over-praised movie I've seen in a long time. Clearly intended to be an incisive look at relationships and the strains that develop along financial faultlines, this plays out like some sort of actors' workshop where everyone is given a problem or secret and then improvise arguments or vaguely elliptical conversations. How odd that this dour exercise iis being marketed as a light comedy! (The scene being shown on the talk shows -- Aniston in a french-maid outfit apparently flirting with a client -- is not what it appears to be and, even then, seems to have been flown in from another movie.) I'm also stunned at the number of critics who call these characters "likable"; I can't recall a less-ingratiating ensemble. The fact that the actors inhabiting these characters are uniformly excellent doesn't mitigate the underlying falseness at the story's core.… Expand

Although the film's personalities were complex and had real depth, Friends With Money simply felt like a exerpt from a larger story. The ending was bizarre and unsettling. However, the movie does leave you with a feeling that these characters will continue on to live interesting yet seemingly "normal" lives.

Combine 90 minutes of no plot and no character development, add a bunch of characters that are not interesting in the least, and throw in dialogue that, while perhaps realistic, lacks wit or cleverness, and you have this film - a movie that's almost unwatchable. Speaking of watch, I found myself looking at mine often during this pedantic film.

Upon leaving the theater I probably would have rated this movie a 7. Films such as this one often suffer from having characters who appear soulless, joyless, and basically incapable of letting a little brightness into their interactions with others. I suppose some filmakers begin the creative process with the idea that perkiness and optimism are uncool and belong nowhere in a film aiming to push the hip-o-meter to its limits. I found that this movie, however, had a time-release charm which needed about 24 hours to reach perfection. In the hands of other actresses these characters may have been intollerably void of spark, but these ladies know what they're doing and leave enough humanity in their roles to make their struggles with ennui worth watching. The male supporting cast is excellent. Their characters develop slowly and richly; perhaps even more so than their female counterparts. Those who are frustrated with slice-of-life type pictures that don't focus on one major conflict (that will, of course, become neatly resovled by the end of the film) may want to steer clear of this one. Don't watch this one expecting to be spoon-fed a happily (or even sadly)-ever-after resolution. If you can appreciate a film which realistically portrays the delicate intricacy of human relationships, you should enjoy Friends with Money.… Expand

I really wanted to like it, and there were a few apt observations here and there, but nowhere near enough given the potential. [***SPOILERS***] No credible backstory (why are these women friends, where did they all come from, what is the history of these relationships?). What the heck did happen to Olivia? Why can't she teach somewhere where the kids aren't so obnoxious? In stead of filling out ANY of these questions : the movie resorts to gimmicks that are supposed to be worth a thousand words, but aren't (Keener bumping into things, McDormand and her hair, Cusack and the husband buying two toys and Aniston with the face cream). overly repeated and not as revealing as the screenwriter seems to think they are. If you're going to take on the very tough issue of class, you hae to do a little more than this. Disappointing, on the whole.… Expand

Sensitive exploration of women's friendships, lives, loves and hangups by Holofcener. The casting could not have been better!

An interesting, sobering study of emptiness and noncommunication in relationships -- and the difficulites of facing that the lives are "going nowhere." Intelligent wriiting and superb acting by all.

I really loved this movie. Great characters, great actors, great script!

Ultimately, what the filmmaker seemingly wants to say is that women are less shallow than men. Why is this maid travelling in the same social circle as these rich(or accomplished) women. If "Friends with Money" ran longer than 88 minutes, maybe we'd find out. The filmmaker thinks we know these characters well enough so she can get away with compressing time with scenes that barely top a minute. Sometimes it works, but more often than not, "Friends with Money" feels awfully rushed. The truncated running time reminds me of John Sayles' "Casa de los Babys". Interestingly, the filmmaker seems to supply an explanation for her brevity. It has to do with the Catherine Keener character, and it comes late in the film. "Friends with Money" is a major letdown after the exquisite "Lovely and Amazing". This film is slight and plodding, but it's populated with actresses we admire who sound like adults.… Expand

I feel as if people have marked this down slightly for the wrong kinds of reasons. It may be watched with perfect pleasure just as a large-brained chick-flick, but it is much more if you step inside the director’s space. There is quality in the four female leads–Keener and McDormand rarely disappoint, while I think Aniston is underrated–and their lesser-known male counterparts do well. Direction is sure and the dialogue sharp. Granted, it’s hard to point to any gut-wrenching “money scenes”, but there is in Holofcener’s gentle parable an underlying seriousness and critique. These are good friends, and good intelligent people, but theirs is also a disturbingly planetary myopia not alien to the rest of us First Worlders. They’re not quite like the proverbial frogs in the gradually heating saucepan of water, but there sure is something they’re missing.… Expand

I didn't get what the filmaker was trying to say. It didn't seem to go anywhere and the ending with Aniston's character seemed to be a tacked on so audiences would like the movie better. Why do a prolonged and subtle character study to ruin it with a completely unbelievable "happy" ending. Same goes with the ending for Jane and her husband, She washes and curls her hair and that's supposed to be satisfying as deeply symbolic?… Expand

[***SPOILERS***] I liked the open ended ending best left to the viewer to figure out what they would do next. I had not very high expectations when renting this movie, except I love Keener and McDormand so was happy this wasn't the typical chick flick!

As an angry, disillusioned fashion designer who has lost her love for life, Frances McDormand gives one of her very best performances. Joan Cusack proves once against that she is one of our finest comediennes. Not as good as the director's Lovely and Amazing, but still a fine comedy with an edge.

Ah, the problems of rich people. Seriously, this was like a Hallmark movie with better production values. It was shot well, framed well, the acting's strong and the characters were likeable...but it was like a big piece of fluff. You call those problems? Hell, I'd trade places with ANY of those women, right now. BTW, Jennifer Aniston dating an overweight slob...a nice thought, but still phony.… Expand

While trying to portray the lives of affluent friends in Los Angeles and attempting to humanize and give them depth, the film fails in that effort. Four different relationships and lifestyles are thrown together with no thread but, instead, a patchwork, where the viewer is in the position of watching a ping-pong game of characters and plots. The film’s greatest flaw is in the writing and editing for nothing is ever completed or played out but instead, at the drop of the editing button, we are placed in different scenes with characters and plots from 2 or 3 scenes past. The movie has no closure with respect to any of the relationships and, indeed, ends in the same way because so much remains unresolved. Good storytelling demands that there be a strain or continuity that takes us from a beginning to a middle and finally an end. This film does not fulfill that basic rule of good writing and leaves us up in the air as to everyone involved. Though the accredited critics from the respected dailies and periodicals liked this film, I was truly disappointed for disjointed films are not only uncomfortable to watch but frustrating as well. There are many elements that, properly handled, could have made this a really good film but, unfortunately, Ms.Holofcener must take responsibility for it not happening. In summary this is a film with a lot of talent but all operating without much depth, material or direction and, for that reason, gets only a 7 rating.… Expand

I usually like Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, AND Jennifer Aniston, but the script was horrible, the idea was horrible, etc. Most of the characters were very unlikeable, as noted by someone below. But the most unrealistic character of them all is Jennifer Aniston. Does anyone really think she would have problems in real life finding guys to date? Why many critics liked this film so much is completely beyond me. The user score (at least at this point) is far more accurate.… Expand

I often value and take into account what the critics write but in the case of this film someone missed something. Wonderful ensemble acting, McDormand did create more than a one dimensional character while Aniston in a wildly challenging role only seemed to re-enforce a dullard, poorly porteayed, who like most of the other characters, were too one dimensional. The portrayal of supposedly gay husbands was a joke with no insight or reality. What couples could be so unconscious? Why were these people even friends? One liners and some clever dialogue did not create what could have been a biting satire of manners and money. The question again, why so much praise for so little insight, so little reality. i guess we are hungry for intelligent cinema, which here was a veneer, hollow, empty, creating little empathy for the lives of these sad souls.… Expand

This movie is awesome!

More rich white peoples with problems. Finds some truth, but with characters only other rich white peoples could feel for.

Writer and director Nicole Holofcener (of 2001’s wonderful indie Lovely & Amazing) reengineers her perceptive take on women and friendship in Friends with Money, an intelligently scripted, finely acted, and deprecatingly humorous movie about the friendship between four women—three of whom are married and wealthy—who reflect on their lives, starting with their relationships, with concern and caution, seeing onto that which their futures hold. Franny, Jane and Christine are married. Franny (Joan Cusack) is the wealthiest of the three, a multimillionaire whose marriage to Matt (Greg Germann) is seemingly void of any problems. Jane (Frances McDormand) is a successful clothing designer whose attitude about life has become mordant and cynical (she flares up in public with little reason and foregoes washing her hair because “it will just get dirty again, so what’s the point?”), leaving Aaron (Simon McBurney), her caring, though possibly gay, husband worried. Lastly, Christine (Catherine Keener), a screenwriter, attempts to revitalize her dissipating marriage to David (Jason Isaacs), whose insensitivity and ruthless honesty has put her in the pits. Meanwhile, Olivia (Jennifer Aniston), the youngest of the four and the only one unmarried, has recently quit a promising teaching job at a high-end school for a lesser-paying one as a housemaid. As her years have passed, she’s grown anxious to meet the right person (for marriage), and has taken to smoking pot and the idea that her best chance for happiness is with her ex-boyfriend, who has long since moved on. When Franny sets Olivia up on a blind date with her personal trainer (Scott Caan), everything appears to be taking a turn for the better. But when he turns out to be another disappointment, Olivia is left to find joy in an unexpected friend: a shy, stocky, thirty-something man (Bob Stephenson), whose house she cleans. Nicole Holofcener’s sincere script is filled with canny, insightful dialogue that plays a heavy role in expanding the characters that have been introduced to us, the bulk of which we come to adore. The four leads contribute realistic, soulful performances that exemplify very much of what Holofcener’s writing says about success and romance in our modern world, and their presence onscreen never feels bloated or unwanted (something most films with multiple leads are unable to evade). In addition to the dead-on screenplay and the also marvelous direction of the film, Friends with Money benefits on a large scale from the honest, sometimes nervous, outlook it has on relationships altogether: whether they be with one’s partner in marriage or friendship, or with attachments they’ve entailed (such as a job or career), relationships are never easy cake and require commitment and adjustment in order to be maintained. Nobody says it better, or in a more engaging way, than Nicole Holofcener, whose latest work is her best, and will have you thinking as much as it will have you laughing and smiling.… Expand

Ychhhh. Like an episode of Grown Up 90210.