With her third feature, Friends With Money, writer-director Nicole Holofcener continues to develop one of the most distinctive voices in American independent film-making. While not as purely satisfying as her previous films Walking and Talking and Lovely and Amazing, Holofcener's third feature is admirably ambitious in establishing a diverse and dynamic range of relationships among long-time girlfriends, their spouses (for better and worse), and the way in which money (or lack of it) affects them all. The have-not of the group is Olivia (Jennifer Aniston), a teacher-turned-pot-smoking housecleaner in the upscale neighbourhoods of West Los Angeles. She's drifting, uncertain of her future both professionally and romantically, while her friends Franny (Joan Cusack), Christine (Catherine Keener), and Jane (Frances McDormand) cope with the relatively enviable problems of wealthy discontentment. They've all got personal crises to resolve, and while Olivia juggles the affections of a likable louse (Scott Caan) and a lonely slob who's secretly rich (Bob Stephenson), Holofcener taps a rich vein of humor and melancholy as these women go about their daily routines, attending benefits, chatting over meals, and doting over Olivia as the "needy one" in their closed circle of friendships.

All of this is richly observed and wonderfully acted (with male costars played by Greg Germann, Jason Isaacs, and Simon McBurney), but reaction to Friends With Money is strictly a matter of personal taste. Holofcener isn't telling a story so much as examining lives in various states of disarray, and she offers no false comforts or simple resolutions. Like life, Friends With Money just continues on its way, with some friends happier than others. There's plenty of truth to be found, if you know where to look.--Jeff Shannon

There is some good acting - as you'd expect with a cast of this quality - and biting humour in this movie, but it has to be said it has a slow moving storyline.People in their forties who feel unhappy with their lives and relationships will find what's on offer here appealing but for anyone looking for fast-paced entertainment look elsewhere.This film is better when you watch it a second time and you are prepared to listen to the dialogue rather than hope or expect anything dramatic or unusual to happen.

Sadly, this film disappointed and bored me. There is a good cast and an promising premise for the dynamic of their interaction, but it just seemed to go nowhere, or when it did it went to places that were not quite believable. The performances were fine, but there was no energy in the story. What was the director thinking? She had talent like Frances McDormand at her fingertips and she squandered it. I don't pretend to be a final arbiter of taste, but I suggest you don't rent this unless you are trying to see the complete works of somebody in it.

I think this has to go down as the worst film I have ever seen. I wish I'd read the reviews a bit more closely before I wasted one of my rentals on this. Can't believe Jennifer Anniston associated herself with it - if you're thinking of renting this believe the bad reviews, it will save the waste of an evening!!

Normally I'd try to eat my left leg before watching a film about 'modern relationships in middle class America'. But FWM was a pleasant surprise. It would be too easy to throw rotten tomatoes at this for it's 'boo hoo it's horrible being middle aged and rich' plot line. But then it's handled so well that it's hard not to like the film. The interactions between the married couples is spot on, all that stuff not said being more important that what is said. Thank God there's nothing mawkish about the kids. There's a couple of pretty funny 'oh, he really is gay' type jokes. Plus Anniston plays it just right as the aimless, meandering pot-head.
The only bad points. The ending is too twee and Anniston is just too pretty to be so unlucky and so naive with men.

My housemates rented this movie, so I joined them to watch it. Putting it quite simply - I wish I hadn't; surely everyone has something better they could be doing for 88 minutes? This is a dire film: pointless dialogue that leads to nowhere, little or no character development, absolutely no plot and an ending that will shock in its abruptness (as other reviewers have said, it shocks as it comes before the film has really started). Despite my fellow viewers' assurance that it was about to explode into some sort of action, it never did, and I can only advise to avoid this movie at all costs, unless you have an hour and half to spare watching untalented actors read out a poorly written script with little or no conviction, and absolutely no excitement.