The Rules of Attraction

Rating:
Summary: Vastly and Artistically misunderstood
Review: Unfortunately, which can be the case with most profane yet seemingly shallow movies, this movie is vastly misunderstood and represented. It comes off at the surface as being a dark comedy about rich college druggies and sexaholics, and much to it's dismay, that's about where it ends with most people (refer to prior reviews and you'll see). Allow me to dispell these misrepresentations.

Artistically speeking, this movie shows a mastery of cinematography (coming from a fellow filmmaker) which I find inspiring. Yes, it may seem gimmicky, mainly because some of these camera and editing tricks haven't been done before; i.e., showing a scene backwards and then reshowing it again. However, in that most people miss the beautiful interweaving Roger Avary does between different characters in the same social situation.
In one scene he uses two characters' daily routine in a split screen, where you see everything they're individually doing before encountering each other in a hallway. However, Roger Avary masterfully pulls of a camera trick I've never seen before. He takes the two split screens and pans them together perfectly, something I think that has been taken for granted. I could go on, but just take my word for it, this is in no way gimmicky.

As far as the characters and story goes, if you analyze this movie off of what you're seeing, you're missing the point. Other than show shallow rich and defunct college kids, you're getting an insight into each character's psyche and how they affect the others. There's eventually a few strong underlying points. One, which has been stated in a previous review, is Lauren's line, then repeated by Sean, which states simply "You will never know me. No one ever knows anybody." I say simple, but I'll be damned if it's not profound. The other point of the movie, which isn't blatantly stated outright, is that you see all of these characters lead their lives through this love triangle that never really exists. All of their associations and relationships are invented in their minds. Paul thinks he's in love with Sean, and that they're together, Sean thinks certain love letters are coming from Lauren and invents his relationship with her, just as Lauren invents her relationship with Victor. Yes this sounds at the surface like a soap opera, but you must see it and delve into the psyche these characters go through and how they're affected by each other. It states profanely that not only can you never truly know anyone, but everything you feel and see could be in your mind only, a certain homage paid to American Psycho, which shares the same underlying theme. And ultimately, in the end, both movies leave you unfulfilled, much like a Dali painting. You have to figure it out yourself.

Do yourself a favor. Don't listen to the mindless dribble most reviewers spew out about this movie, just watch it and think. Keyword, THINK about it. You'll find yourself as rewarded and pleased as I have.

Rating:
Summary: About as satisfying as limp asparagus
Review: I was sadly disappointed in this latest attempt to depict the "meaning of the meaningless of it all." This film was chock a block full of lukewarm acting, semi-weak writing with fancy camera tricks to make up for Van Der Beek's leering (his attempt at angst?)and the lackluster character development. Jessica Biel was almost convincing as the sad little promiscuous girl looking for love and affection through sex, but who cares, since that character is totally overdone? Shannyn Sossamon, as gorgeous as she is, cannot save this trite exercise in banality. There is an uncomfortable scene in which she is vomited on while losing her virginity, but it seemed gratuitous. The best scene is when one of the kids (van't recall the name) makes an excellent scene in a restaurant.

Rating:
Summary: As Good As It Seems
Review: I'll admit, I was impressed enough with this movie when I had first rented it, to buy it. Why? It reminded me of college.

The Laws of Attraction is meant to be exactly what appears to be, a movie about a bunch of college students, with nothing but potential, experiementing with drugs, sex, and their own selves. These characters aren't sure of themselves anymore than most college students. They're testing the limits of their environment, all while being able to safely return to the coziness of their dorm rooms.

What I liked about the movie,was that it felt real. For me, college wasn't perfect, it was full of a bunch of kids, half who were trying to study hard and then party hard, the other half who just wanted to party hard. In college, people commit suicide, they overdose, and they get raped. That's the reality of what could happen when you experiment with yourself.

If you want clarity, this isn't the movie for you. It's meant to flashback, skip around and be as lost as any of the students in the film.

PROS :
- Great cast
- Nice cinematography
- Realistic portrayal of difficult situations

CONS :
- Substandard postproduction / editing
- Weak plot
- Average writing

Rating:
Summary: great film experience
Review: Backward scenes starting the stories followed by jumping in backflashes leads to unique film techniques amongst sharing the views of three main characters. James and Shannyn are attracted to one another but instead of telling the truth they go around fantasising and screwing everyone else. Very funny...one big end of year party movie with thought provoking commentaries.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable only if you haven't read the book. . . .
Review: Here's the deal:

"Rules of Attraction" is another solid effort by Ellis as a novel. I have always been a fan of his with my favorites being of course, "American Psycho" and "Glamorama." The main reason for my fascination for the book was the fact that Patrick Bateman's little brother Sean is really the main character in this one. You can definetely see another American Psycho growing in Sean, making you wonder if Patrick had a similar college life. And while ROA was a good read, not his best but very enjoyable, the movie was gimmicky by contrast.

Yes, I do agree with the other reviewers here that "if you are able to identify with the characters, you will love this movie." Yes, I had some rough times myself and looking back, pretty much partied myself out. I CAN identify with the characters, and that is good for some laughs throughout and a couple of "Oh S***s" to squeak out of my mouth. That's really about it.
As a movie, it wasn't really faithful to the the book, which to me, is always dissapointing. Sadly, reading the book first has made me not quite like this movie.
So why the three stars? Well, I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the book. It is entertaining as well as disturbing especially if you have lived this film in some form or another. You can get a bit of nostalgia watching this flick. So for me, it's two stars. I feel if I hadn't read the book, it probably would have been maybe four, so three is in the middle to be fair.

IT is worth watching if for nothing else seeing Fred Savage Doing something that is not quite what we expected from a Wonder Years player.
"That's why there are no clocks in my room" LOL

Rating:
Summary: When the movie ended the fun began
Review: Seriously, the best part of this movie is when the credits roll. That's when Erasure's "STOP!" kicks in, a raucous song that will have you up and on your toes.

I tuned in and out of this movie when it was on HBO, it never really held my attention. Sure there were some cute actors and actresses who were stripping down now and then but the whole movie was just bizarre. I kept watching though because I was bored. Finally this piece of junk ended and my favorite band started singing.

Instead of buying this, just go buy any one of Erasure's great albums instead. More bang for your buck.

Rating:
Summary: Only Ian...
Review: This is something I seem to hawk on in any review I give that is negative, but it's too important to be overlooked. In order for any art form to be "good" (however you want to subjectively define that), it needs to *make sense*. Whether it's a painting, the lyrics of a song, a book, or a movie: the parts which comprise the whole need to work together to create one uncompromising union.

This movie doesn't make sense.

It is a string of gratuitous events, from the very beginning to the absolute end, and anytime the word "gratuitous" is used in conjunction with a form of art, that's a bad thing. Our main characters consist of Lauren, who thinks she has a boyfriend who is in Europe for a time, and while he is away she falls in love with another main character. That character's name is Sean Bateman, and why anyone would fall in love with him is beyond comprehension. He is base, immoral, and revolting. The other main character, Paul, was Lauren's ex-boyfriend until he came out of the closet. He too, bewilderingly, falls in love with Sean.

But this isn't a story about a love triangle - in fact, it's not really a story about anything. There's nothing to latch onto and say, "This is the foundation of this film."

The images we are shown aren't meant to enlighten us - they never enlighten us. They merely disgust or please us, and that comes full circle back to the film being a string of gratuitous events.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, makes any sense.

The one bright spot in the film, and the reason for its two star rating, is Ian Somerhalder's performance (Paul). If you're interested in his career, then by all means, watch this film. Just look away when he's not on the screen.


Rating:
Summary: A noble attempt at an adaptation. The gimmick adds nothing.
Review: Bret Easton Ellis actually does not translate onto film without immense effort because the real stuff of his writing is in the piling up of seemingly mundane events and details. Anything which happens to a character in an Ellis novel doesn't mean much to that character. So things you need in a movie like unity, character arcs... all that is either forged by the screenwriter or doesn't work in the movie.

Here, Roger Avery (the bitter man destined to be remembered for his jealousy of former partner Tarantino) employs a gimmick of scenes running backwards which unfortunately does not add to the story's unity. This is because the book does not work backwords - the book is linear and moves forwards - as does the movie, after the first few scenes! So i wasn't sure what the point of it was!

It does not give the whole thing a feeling of purpose, it does not tie it together. The gimmick is essentially useless. He shows us the final scene first, then we do the movie and by the time we come back to it, we've not learned hardly anything that gives us a new appreciation of it. This is a sign that you're gimmick has done absolutely nothing for you.

So while i thought the actors (particularly James van der Beek as Sean Bateman and the guy playing Paul) did a sterling job at playing these dark, hollow characters - and lovers of the book will have to admire the lion's effort of an adaptation, this problem with the gimmick was damning for me.

Don't come expecting a standard teen film - this film is an expose of the emptiness of college sex drugs and violence. You will be disturbed, or if you think this is quite normal, i'll be disturbed.

Rating:
Summary: book vs. movie
Review: Read the book. Watch the movie. Take them as seperate works, as they are both amazing if its a subject you can connect with.