Rating: 
Summary: # 2 in my top 10.
Review: I was very excited to to see this film, It was only released in cinemas here in Australia on 20/2/03, so my desire to see a DVD of the fim is a LONG way off. ps we have more 'modern' censorship laws, we have the US NC-17 equivalent relase.In repsonse to those to find the suicide scene distrurbing, good. That is the whole ever loving point. This film is meant to be dark, in fact it is nowhere near as dark as the book. I'll be honest in the suicide scene, at times I just turned away. My personal favourite characters were Paul, Laura and Richard. All of the performances were brilliant, some more so. Van Der Beek really impressed me. The scene with the snowflake as a tear on Sean's cheek is a great one. There were a few times where I just could not stop laughing.
The only film that I have seen in the last 12 months that I have gotten more out of is "Bowling for Columbine", but they both get 5 stars from me.
If you haven't seen this film, see it. But if you are easily offended, and can not deal with very confronting scenes you may want to think twice. Bring on "Glamourama"!
Rating: 
Summary: The Book is Better than the Movie, but the Movie is Good
Review: I really do not know what was going through Roger Avary's mind when he was adapting Bret Easton Ellis' book into a screenplay, but I personally think that turning Lauren's character into a virgin was a really stupid idea. I think this movie would have made much more sense had Avary not completely warped Lauren's character. The book starts off with an anonymous woman, describing the humiliating experience she had losing her virginity when she was a freshman at Camden. After reading the whole book I am still not completely sure whether that woman was actually Lauren or not. The other really big discrepancy between the book and the movie is that Jessica Biel's character, Lara, does not exist in the book. I don't think that Lauren even had a roommate in the book, but Sean does cheat on Lauren with her best friend Judy. I watched the movie first and I liked it enough to want to read the book. While I definitely liked the book better than the movie, I think the movie "improved" on the book by keeping Paul and Sean's relationship unconsummated sexually, because in the book Paul talks about having sex with Sean several times. This is really confusing because Sean's character is clearly heterosexual. In the book and in the movie, the highlight is the time that Paul spends with the Mimi and Richard 'Dick' Jared and his mother. Of course the scene where Paul and Richard are dancing on the bed never happens in the book, but it is hilarious and not to be missed. The only comment I want to make about the girl who committed suicide is that a man/jerk like Sean Bateman is not worth killing yourself over. If there is any real reason to have a scene like that in a movie/book it is to point out the utter stupidity of throwing your life away over someone who is not worthy of you in the first place. Some of the time, when a movie is based on a book that I have read, I will get upset with the movie makers because they often absolutely butcher the book and make it into a lousy movie. While I think that Avary made some mistakes in adapting this book into a movie, the movie is basically good and entertaining, and therefore, worth seeing.
Rating: 
Summary: One star is too many
Review: This is one of the most odious, offensive, repellent movies I have ever seen. One reviewer urges you to look behind the shallow, hedonistic characters and find truth and beauty. Don't bother trying; there is only a void. I watched this movie with other young viewers in ultra-open-minded San Francisco, and the feeling throughout the theater was palpable. It was like enduring root canal surgery.
Rating: 
Summary: Avary did a great job...
Review: I've read the book (I've read all of Ellis and even though he's not always easy to read, he's usually worthwhile)and it was one of my favorites of his for a long time. Roger Avary and Ellis seem to have collaborated to a certain extent here and the result is a very well done movie. If I had to pick a bone, its that the book itself doesn't have enough of a narrative story and that problem seems to have translated somewhat to the screen. Avary does a great job of using reverse motion (more effectively than I've ever seen before) split screen (pretty amazing, the one scene that is dissected on the DVD in Anatomy of a Scene)nonlinear timeline and some other subtle tricks but its misdirection, designed to point the viewer a bit away from the lack of narrative. Make no mistake...I thought it was a really good film. If anything, the problem stems from the source material, where Ellis was building characters with a relatively loose narrative story. Avary does a very good job translating it. Interestingly, in Ellis' writing, he sometimes switches to different narrative forms. That sounded like one thing in my head as I read, but to see Avary's take on it, it changed it. Victor's Trip (if you haven't seen the movie, wait and you'll see what I mean) was almost pure Ellis and while different from the voice in my head, it was just as legitimate. In short, I want to go re-read the book and listen to the commentaries on the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: forced packaging
Review: i first went into this movie looking to hate it. the way it was sold to the audience, the reviews (one actually said the movie had no point, it just 'ended'), and the cast all prepped me to hate it. but since im a roger avery fan, i took a chance. i wasnt let down by the directing or the cinematography. the acting, surprisingly, was quite well. van der beek made some of his lines sound a bit corny or forced as did sossaman. van der beeks glare looked a little out of place or poorly acted. Ian Somerhalder, on the other hand, was perfect. my only prob with the movie was the model/actours and the advertising. better than killing zoe, not as good as way of the gun.
Rating:
Summary: Distrubing
Review: An intersting movie. But, be aware that while it has comic scenes, it is not a comedy. The story relates the inter-personal relationships and life paths of several college students leading up to a party on a particular night. However, none of these individuals has a moral compass by which to navigate their relational connections. As a result, the consequences of their actions cost them dearly.
Again, be aware that this movie has some very disturbing scenes. Think of movies like "Go" but without the hope and endurance of youth.
Rating: 
Summary: Tedious
Review: Based on Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name, Roger Avary's first film in five years is a rather tedious tour through the social malaise of some rich, young and miserably hip kids at a swanky New England liberal arts college where the good-looking come to breed. The story, what little there is of it, involves an abortive love triangle between Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek), brother of the infamous Patrick from "American Psycho", Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) and her bisexual ex, Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder). Paul loves Sean, Sean loves Lauren, and Lauren doesn't want either of them. She's saving herself for Victor (Kip Pardue): oversexed, "only a little gay", and currently summering in Europe. If I could convince myself that in its catatonic banality "The Rules of Attraction" meant to iterate both the boredom and degenerate emptiness of the lives it recounts, then I'd be able to say it succeeds. As I can't, I'm stuck with saying it's bad. Not even well-intentioned-but-ultimately-unsuccessful bad, just plain bad. And irritating. There's a thin line between confrontational and banal, and Avary spends way too much time on the wrong side of it. He seems to think that showing otherwise self-consciously cool characters throwing up, picking their noses, wiping their asses, and masturbating to internet porn somehow makes them gritty and real. Here's a better idea: how about writing a decent scene? His direction is either self-consciously gimmicky (split screen and reverse running used to little effect) or relentlessly dull. Not even his take on the guns-and-knives drama of a drug deal gone sour, or a teen suicide, can raise your pulse. There is one moment of inspiration: a fast-paced retelling of Victor's trip to Europe, shot in the style of a camcorder travelogue. The performances, in general, are weak. James Van Der Beek tries to scowl away the ghost of Dawson Leery, but can't. Ian Somerhalder seems to have accepted his past and plays just the kind of character his Versace-model looks equip him for - pity it's not a more interesting one. Fellow "Young Americans" survivor Kate Bosworth is entirely forgettable. Only Shannyn Sossamon manages to convince you that beneath the well-heeled teen angst and doe-eyed disaffection there's a living, breathing human and not just a teen TV star looking to make the leap into film. But it isn't quite enough. By the end, I was wishing Sean's maniacal and more interesting brother Patrick would arrive from New York with his axe and Armani raincoat. "The Rules of Attraction" is not half as cutting as it thinks it is, and nowhere near as clever. By failing to give us anything more than satirical superficiality, it alienates its audience. As Sean says to Paul in what I assume to be the film's climactic moment of epiphany: "You'll never know me." The tragic impenetrability of the social persona seems to be Avary's point. But with characters this hateful, you can count it as a blessing.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Movie of All Time
Review: There are not enough bad things I can say about this movie. It was a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Open your mind & let the ride begin...
Review: You know how you tell the really important, ground-breaking films? They usually divide people right down the middle, and The Rules of Attraction is no exception. There are many people who just won't "get it", but for those who do it's not only one of the most fearless films of recent years, but one of the most electrifying, truthful & downright poigiant "teen" flicks since The Graduate. Some people say the characters in this film are empty & unlikeable. You have to look beyond that however, look underneath the masks they're wearing & see what's beneath. All the characters in this film are actually completely likeable & crying out to be loved, whether it be the "invisible" girl in the background (who subsequently commits suicide in a truly gut wrenching scene of unrequited love), or more directly Paul (Ian Somerhalder) who sets his sights on Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek), but is similarly a casualty of misguided love. Some people have called this film "boring", however this is one of those films that only gives back what you bring to it. If you approach with an open mind & enthusiasm then this film will reward you with emotions that are rarely approached or touched upon by many other films. You have to work at this one, you can't just watch it with your brain in neutral! Therefore, if you found this film boring then it's more likely you as a person who are "boring"! There really is something happening in this film at every moment, whether it be in the background or up front. If you fail to notice this then you really are watching the wrong movie.. One person asked "why did we need to see the suicide scene with the girl in the bathtub, as it was painful to watch"??!! I believe that is the whole POINT of this scene.. it's SUPPOSED to be painful to watch! This scene conveys the emotions of the girl who secretly has a crush on Sean Bateman, but is hardly even noticed by him. She is devistated, her heart is crushed, she cannot face life in this world without him.. so she takes her own life. Without this scene, her existence in the film would be rendered meaningless. With this immensely important scene we are shown that EVERYTHING, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant may have some meaning or connection. To end this film is like a mirror to the viewer, it's as "intelligent" or "empty" as the person watching it..
Rating:
Summary: Rules of Porn
Review: well, speaking for the mindless drones who just party,... party , have sex and then commit suicide. This film is Right on! Its a glimpse into the dark side of "college" partying. Not EVERYONE is like the characters portrayed here, however most people aren't what they seem most of the time right? so in that fact I find this film intriguing!(hence the 3 stars) The [explicit] scenes etc.. are WAY too drawn out and over the top. I do get the "dark humor" etc..
I find that there are some people that NEVER enjoy life....or think they do for a split second and then loathe it forever until they kill themselves! This film showcases those hard luck cases.......if you think youll like a film filled with backwards scenes, big doses of ... simulated [love making] and [more] gobs of vulgarity,Guys kissing guys, girls kissing girls, tons of nudity, dark humor and slap you in the face suicide is a reality type scenes then this film is for you!
I find it amazing what the ratings board allows to fit an R rating these days. the film has originality by dosing the desensitized viewer with utter debauchery. This film is set to wow the "now" generation, Offend many, disgust many, and baffle many....I personally find it a hard pill to swallow... and films generally mirror the times in which they are made. So this one fits the bill quite nicely showcasing todays society and its wide acceptance of debauchery.
| 
