In the production notes for writer-director Nicole Holofcener’s third motion picture “Friends with Money” the filmmaker talks about her youth growing up reading the works of Judy Blume. It is a good place to start when thinking about Holofcener, both of her previous two features “Walking and Talking” and “Lovely and Amazing” adult offspring of the writer of Tales of a High School Nothing and Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great own school-age world.

There is a surreal connection between director and author, a feminine joining of concepts and ideas both heartfelt and immediate. What just might be most refreshing of all is that both have the temerity to talk about real people going through real life, each artist content in their belief that audiences and readers will respond to their works based on this mirroring of current run-of-the-mill people and places alone.

Of course, it helps that both women write extremely well, creating characters a person feels like they grew up next door to. Even better, the duo’s works cut an emotional swath that’s absolutely sublime. Not only are their stories breathlessly funny, they’re also startlingly romantic, movingly dramatic and shockingly poignant. In the briefest brushstrokes they are able to sucker punch a reader or viewer straight to the emotional quick, keeping their audiences fixated on each and every one of their moves with relative ease.

Not that either woman can be accused of being perfect. Each has their missteps, and in the case of Holofcener “Friends with Money” could probably be seen as hers. The thing is, as missteps go her film still manages to come out a winner even if it isn’t as well constructed or as emotionally layered as her previous two efforts. There is still truth to be found in this ensemble comedic melodrama, and it isn’t truth of the bargain basement variety found littering Blockbuster shelves or Netflix queues all across the country. Holofcener puts a mirror to her audience and asks them to look honestly at what it is they see, the only problem here being she forgot to clean the glass before setting it up in front of her viewers.

This time out the filmmaker is looking at the lives of four California friends each sitting at various points of the wealth spectrum. Jane (Frances McDormand), a successful clothing designer married to an effeminate Brit named Aaron (Simon McBurney), is angry and distraught for reasons she can’t quite understand. Christine (Catherine Keener) masks her estrangement to husband Patrick (Jason Isaacs) by remodeling the house, not taking into consideration how these improvements are going to effect relationships with her neighbors. Olivia (Jennifer Aniston, rebounding nicely from “Rumor Has It”), the only one with a bank balance hovering near zero, hides her own discontent by quitting her teaching job, smoking marijuana and by bringing order to other people’s lives as a maid.

Seemingly above the fray is Franny (Joan Cusack). Not only is she the wealthiest of the quartet, she’s also, to all outward appearances, the happiest, nestled comfortably inside a good marriage with her husband Matt (Greg Germann). While their life together is hardly perfect, the man can’t seem to quit smoking and Franny just doesn’t have the heart to make him, it is certainly very good. In fact, so good that there are times this wife and mother can’t help but wonder if she, Jane, Christine and especially Olivia would still be friends had they met later in their lives.

That right there is the central question hiding deep inside “Friends with Money.” These characters and their lives float from here to there, but no matter where they wander these women still manage to remain true to one another as only the best of friends truly can. It’s a real life “Sex and the City” made up of four people we all can relate to in at least some small measure, their connection one to another as vibrant, funny and alive as any in our own lives.

Some of these women are more fleshed out than others although each does have at least one compelling moment that rings true. For me, the best of the bunch is Jane, brilliantly played by McDormand. This is the actress’ best performance since her Oscar-winning turn in “Fargo,” the woman ripping into the character with ferociously unglamorous glee. Jane wears her anger on her sleeve only to be inwardly embarrassed and ashamed each time it rears its ugly head. Hiding behind a mop of greasy unwashed hair, McDormand dives into the roll, Jane a uniquely imperious presence impossible to forget.

The other three women are all quite good in their own right I just didn’t connect with them as richly as I did with Jane. It doesn’t help that each has a moment I couldn’t help but feel rang false, chief amongst them a third act change of heart for Christine that nearly made my blood boil. I also didn’t buy the romantic battle going on between Olivia and a hunky personal trainer (dryly played by a laidback Scott Caan). As much of a train wreck as her life certainly is, the woman gives in far too easily to her beau’s lascivious mechanizations, and while there are certainly laughs to be found (just check out Aniston’s maid outfit) they don’t hold the same aura of truth Jane’s vignettes do.

Caan isn’t the only male actor trapped in Holofcener’s script with very little to play. McBurney has the most to do of any of the guys yet he’s still just as much of an enigma by the end as he was at the start. That’s better than Germann and Isaacs, neither of them getting the chance to make a dent in their thinly realized husbands. At one point, Isaacs actually disappears entirely, and while reasonably intelligent person can figure out what probably happened to him the fact there is no attempt at closure on the director’s part had me more that a tad perplexed.

Thankfully, so much of the rest of the movie is so smart, so acerbic, so effectively realized that I can look away from most of these faults without too much in the way of guilt. As “Walking and Talking” and “Lovely and Amazing” proved, Holofcener knows women; their relationships, their problems, their lives; backwards and forwards. Better, the writer-director has the guts to make top-notch entertainments revolving around real life. No explosions, no screeching tires, no blazing guns, no projectile vomiting, no absurdist Hollywood lunacy of any kind.

Refreshing in its own intoxicating way, flaws and all I’d watch something like this any day of the week. Holofcener, like Blume, is interested in real people having real problems trying to navigate real lives, making “Friends with Money” a real cinematic relief.

Film Rating: êêê  (out of 4)