Rating: 
Summary: Fair is fair
Review: Ok...Ok...the movie isn't nearly as epic as some of us demand of "college genre" flicks these days. I mean we can't compare all films to the vaunted Felicity, can we??? And yes, "Rules" is also not as good as the book (typical). But it isn't horrible as some of the reviews have countered either. Those who lament the movie's skewed glamorization of sex and drugs would be surprised to know that college life, for some, is as vapid and cruel as the movie makes it out to be. Believe it or not, there are selfish, callous, and pretentious types who dot the college lawns like mushroom after a wet spring--just like in the "real world." So that didn't surprise me. What did make me think that the movie surpassed the usual fare was its attempt at getting to something deeper in the lives of the three main characters; they were, even in their self-absorption, looking for something meaningful on a campus of apathy--even if that quest for meaning was trite or conventional (love). But then, they are early twenty-somethings. Go figure. Perhaps the movie just didn't quite succeed in the end, as some have stated, because it clamped down in its melodramatic denouement between the three characters caught in a love triangle. But it was a worthwhile attempt. And for that attempt, which was pretty well executed (script, direction, etc), I think the movie is underrated. The only thing amiss was the movie's whitewashing of the pansexual nature of the original book. That would've gotten the puritans even more heated...er, excited.
Rating: 
Summary: No Rules Here! Sick, Sad, Twisted & Totally Believable...
Review: THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY RULES THAT AREN'T MEANT TO BE BROKEN... The Rules Of Attraction pulls no punches when it comes to breaking almost EVERY sexual & social more known to man. A not so charming look at college life for the poor, spoiled, upper-middle class at it's seediest & most hedonistic. Suicide, bisexuality, masterbation, pornography, rape, & drug/alcohol abuse abound in this film. Along with some very cool cinematography & decent acting makes this film a great psudo-psycho-sexual shockumentary. Such things as split screens, freeze-frames, running the film backwards, & a very memorable & intense rapid editing scene make you feel as if you have just snorted coke with the cast. Weird and very trippy movie with a GREAT ENDING. This film, of course, will not appeal to all since it's frankness in the above mentioned topics will make some uncomfortable at best. If you can view objectively and appreciate Pulp Fiction, Requiem For A Dream, My Own Private Idaho, & other films in genres such as this, then you will appreciate this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Let's not Rock & Roll
Review: If this movie didn't attempt to be something more than a flick for teen-age boys, I might not have taken several moments to sit back and think about it. However, since the makers of Rules attempted at a contrived philosophy throughout the movie, I feel the need to let anyone curious about this moive know the truth. This movie is painfuly stupid. The characters are weak and petty, the acting is one dimensional, and the script was a patchwork of several good movies, which gave Rules of Attraction a perverse Frankenstein make-up.
If you're into mindless sex and nudity which is attempted to be passed as "DEEP", then rent this. The only emotion this movie will stir in anyone who isn't a teen boy is depression over the fact that you actually sat down and watched this. And god forbid if you actually paid for it!
Rating:
Summary: Stop trying to be so deep and accept this for what it is
Review: This is a highly watchable movie. I mean this movie can be categorized however you please and you can roll your eyes and try to discredit it by throwing it into genre's....Stop. Just watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is. A wild and crazy portrait of college life and romance. I noticed all the cliches as well but I am not smug enough to chastize this movie because of them. If you liked Cruel Intentions you will like this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Dawson can actually act
Review: The Rules of Attraction was actually a good film. Dawson was actually good as a psychotic drug dealer.The whole film was based on the love triangle between Sean Bateman ( Van der BEEK) a flamboyant bisexual ( Ian Sommerhalder) and a virgin girl ( Shannon Sossoman). The film itself gave very little insight of College life, but overall the quality was good fun. My favorite scenes were when Paul and his gay friend Dick were dancing to George Michael's ''Faith'', which was the film's highlight. Jessica Biel wasn't too believeable playing a slutty character in the film. It was just another attempt for Biel to abandon her 7TH HEAVEN tv image.The film stayed true to the book mostly, except for the fact Avary didn't show much of the homosexual relationship between Sean and PAUL. The split screen process in the film was a bit tiresome, but overall I liked it!
Rating:
Summary: Stylistic excess as lifeless cinema
Review: After watching the Rules of Attraction, I felt like I had just indulged in an oily, foul tasting dessert. Its subject, (sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll amongst cynical college youth) crisp cinematography, gimmicky film techniques, and cast of beautiful people all appealed to me in an immediate superficial sense. But after watching this pointless shock-fest, I felt like a slob; my mind, unkempt and fat with the nastiness and excess of this movie. Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek) is our tour guide through a rich college campus. There's a love triangle at work between him, Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon sporting the worst hair style I've yet to see in a motion picture) and Paul (the terrifically pretty Ian Somerhalder). But plot isn't important. And for that matter, neither are the characters, who by the way, aren't palpable human beings but walking adjectives. Sean is BITTER. Lauren is NAIVE. Paul is GAY. The dishonest depictions of sensitive subjects such as homosexuality, rape, suicide, and drug addiction might elicit outrage- if they weren't so totally within context of the dishonest and vacuous sensibility of the movie. In other words, this movie is too inept to even offend. Rules of Attraction is style. Style that serves no content, no purpose, and dazzles your most base and lazy senses. It's indicative that the best moment in the film is a still, wide-angle shot (of Paul and his old chum, the charismatic Dick dancing bizarrely to George Michael's "Faith" on a hotel bed). What you'd least expect from a film this frenetic and giddy on excess is tedium: but sheer boredom is exactly what you get. Its constant barrage of headiness and shock eventually becomes static and dull bceause it is all release and no tension. By the end we've become as blase to the action as the characters themselves. If only that were the intent...
Rating:
Summary: one of those bad movies you can't resist
Review: Despite it's overly bad portrayal of college youth and the fact that you could believe this movie was written by drug addicts, it's gross exaggeration of rich, young, drug-driven America serves as a humorous if not intensely insane mode of using time and having a good laugh. Despite the badness of it all, the movie was actually fairly interesting to watch, as it is so psychologically mesmerizing that you can't help but laugh at what you can and cannot understand in the movie itself. Plus, watching good actors go bad can always be a good laugh.
Rating:
Summary: see the movie, and if you like it read the book
Review: I saw the film before I read the book. Like the book, the movie makes you feel really strongly about the characters (all of them, from the good bad Sean Bateman to the intellectual scumbag professor Lauren messes around with..hate him) ... the movie has to do it more with imagery because they can't have all the dialogue from the book. Great movie, but I think it would have been better if they stuck more to the book. There were a couple major flaws in the movie that bothered me, the rest I could deal with ... one that really bothered me is in the book Sean listens to Velvet Underground and in the movie they have him playing Counting Crows on guitar for the bimbo he bangs at The End of the World. Counting Crows weren't even around when this film was supposed to be set and if they were Sean Bateman would not listen to them. Also they have Lauren losing her virginity at The End of the World party but in the book she doesn't even attend _that_ party, and she regrets not going. Another thing is Lauren's relationship with Victor - in the book he is in Europe, and she is missing him but screwing around on him, in the movie he has just gotten back from europe and she just has a thing for him; they hadn't had any relationship. Also in the book, according to Denton, he and Sean have more of a thing .. they downplay that in the movie. All that aside, though, it's a great movie. James Van Der Beek is perfect as Sean, polar opposite of his lame Dawson's Creek character. The 80s music goes really well with the movie, it's a great selection. The strange sequence of events didn't really throw me off or bother me at all. My advice is see the movie and if you like it and want more read the book, the book is excellent and I think even if I had read the book first I'd still love the movie because of the great casting and the way other things in the film are thrown together.
Rating:
Summary: Attractive Rules
Review: Cult director Roger Avary ("Killing Zoe") adapts the material from one of Brett Easton Ellis` books and provides an enticing and addictive cinematic experience in "The Rules of Attraction". The movie focuses on 3 college kids who are emotionally hurt and the only way to deal with the situation is spending their time around drugs, sex, parties and little else.
The directing is edgy and stylish enough, pherhaps even a bit too hip for it`s own good, but excellent nonetheless. There are a lot of jump/ reverse moments in the narrative to make it interesting, as well as multiple story perspectives, split screens and an unique, cretive way of connecting sound and image (the soundtrack is just great and sets the mood properly). At times, it recalls some "Trainspotting" or "Pulp Fiction" moments (Avary co-wrote the latter, by the way). Sean (played by James Van Der Beek) is a character one love`s to hate, a selfish, crude and arrogant guy who eventually gets a hold on himself as he becomes more and more interested in Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon), a smart, late virgin who is expecting for her boyfriend to return from a trip to Europe. Paul (Ian Somerhalder) is a bisexual guy who recently dated Lauren and starts caring deeply about Sean, who rejects him. So, we have a circular plot who`s simple in a way but is told in a refreshing manner, so it never becomes tiresome. Sure, there are some apparently meaningless scenes but as a whole they make sense and help to develop the characters, who are more than what they first seem (although we never get to know them properly, since "no one knows anyone"). The movie offers an interesting look at a part of college experience, showing a darker, cynical and bitter side of teenagers and young adults that isn`t seen in the most common, dumbed down and predictable teen flicks out there. This mixes heavy dark comedy with sad moments of loneliness, despair and alienation. There`s sex, drugs and rock n`roll, but it isn`t really a case of style over substance. Sure, it has style and is visually compelling, but it`s also meaningful and though-provoking, especially in the poetic, gothic-like moments of the third act.
One of the best teen movies of the last years, alongside "Ghost World" and "Donnie Darko".
Rating: 
Summary: Smart script & excellent execution make for intriguing film
Review: Roger Avary (co-writer of Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs with Quentin Tarantino) creates a modern retelling of Bret Easton Ellis' novel of the same name. James Van Der Beek creates a remarkable portrait of privelege gone awry as a the rich debauched younger brother of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman. He lusts for a girl he has never met and will do anything to bed her, all the while unaware that his target is not the one who has been leading him on. It's a telling sign of the film that we are presented with the film's ending at the start of the film with the rest of the film as prologue to these characters' unseemly predicaments at the start of the film. The film boasts a wonderful rich soundtrack by Tomandandy which creates this 80's atmosphere to hearken to the book's original setting. The film's best segment is a European vacation vignette with Kip Pardue that sets up the eventual adaptation of Ellis' novel Glamourama, but if there's one film worth watching for a 5 minute sequence, it's this one as Avary gives us a drug fueled manic tour monologue of the European continent in 5 minutes only to have it set up as a payoff to a joke about virgin conquests, hearkening back to early Tarentino/Avary fare like Reservoir Dogs. Excellent film.
|
