Rating: 
Summary: Quite Possibly ...
Review: This has to be the best, or one of the best pieces of cinematography that I have ever seen. The spit shot scene, the numerous shots of time fast-forwarding and rewinding, the multiple character thought patterns, all help to add this to my favorites list. I am very impressed with the well thought out characters, extraordinary dialogue, and character motivation. If you haven't seen this movie I recommend that you do it's an excellent piece of movie magic.
Rating: 
Summary: True to the novel
Review: I saw "The Rules of Attraction" shortly after reading the novel, and found it to be a pretty faithful and entertaining adaption. The movie stays true to the tone of the book, even if it did change the time period from the early 80's to present day. All the visual and stylistic tricks the filmmakers used worked to convey the confusion, drug use, and craziness that the troubled students of Camden college are experiencing. Since the film didn't shy away from many of the dark themes of the book, my only real complaint was how much the film minimized the homosexual relationship between Sean and Paul in the film (which was much more explicit and extensive in the book). It seems that in this day and age, drug use, suicide, and violence are all acceptable film content, but for a mainstream film, male on male sex is still too much of a taboo.
Rating: 
Summary: I Wish This Movie Counted As A Film
Review: I have to say that before this movie I never watched Dawson's Creek. I'm at an age where the word creek sounds more like a burial than a place of teen angst. So I didn't have an image in my mind of what this movie's lead would be like. After watching it twice I have come to believe that tv stars don't for the most part make good movie actors. Sure Sally Fields maybe, but most tv stars take to movies like like George W. Bush to the English language.The problem is usually about the ease and talent that film acting requires. On a small screen those breaks in the strory can cloud limted acting- ask any soap star- but in a 2 hour movie I have to believe you from start to finish or else I am wasting all my time. The people in this movie are pretty in that" Real World" way. You would only notice them because someone makes them seen. But their characters are also " Real World" like. They no real flaw of character that you believe shows any insight or depth and they are labels from the minute we see their names on the screen; labels they never rise above. The film is written as though we are to think that the characters all have more than they offer and are passing time try to figure that more out. But in reality one wonders how they got into college in the first place and what is more how their sexual needs are any thing more then just drugged induced feelings of horniness. Between the drugs, the kisses, the drinks and the screwing this films only suggest that their are a great many parents outthere who should reconsider how much allowance to send junior. It is clear that he/she is getting too much. No one can get through college as dysfuntional as these people. Finally I would be thoughtless if I didn't mention two scenes that really bothered me. First Dawson and the "gay" kiss at some point- at least in the "gay"'s mind. It is the worst kiss I have ever seen. It is wooden, and fake and lacks any true desire. It is meant to shock the viewer and not deepen the characters. That only proves that these aren't real actors but image boys. If they really wanted to break their image they would have really kissed and shown the world that a man to man kiss can be as exciting and defining as any other moment. Too bad they are too homophoic to really see the character and not the kiss. Secondly- one actor Russell Sams(Dick) seesm to think that he is in a real movie and makes his character what all the other one aren't- unforgiving. In his scenes we see a real dysfuntional boy who not trying to be a man but a human with wit and childish honesty. His meanness and crude behavior is based on a known future and we can respect his manners because we know he knows that they are just an act.
Rating:
Summary: What a waste!!!
Review: There have been a lot of films lately that don't have brains. Movies that are all style but no substance. These kinds of movies bother me. Why, because these films will have supporters who try to pull out subtext or complicate the plot by trying to explain subtext that isn't there.Roger Avery's (Killing Zoe) THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is that kind of movie. It's pretentious, vapid, and really silly. I did not like this movie at all. I hated THE RULES OF ATTRACTION. The film takes place at fictional Camden College. There we follow three college students: Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek, Texas Rangers) who is a drug dealer with a heart of gold, Lauren (Shannon Sossaman, 40 Days, 40 Nights) the virgin who is longing to lose her virginity, and Paul (Ian Somerhalder, Life as a House) A homosexual who doesn't know how to pick the right guys. We follow these people through weeks at school all leading up to `THE END OF THE WORLD' party. While I watched this film I wanted the world to end. Can I make some suggestions to ROGER AVERY? Number 1: HIRE A NEW EDITOR. Honestly there are moments in this film that go on forever. There is a sequence where we watch Paul and Lauren get up and go to a class in split screen, and it has to go on for at least 6 minutes. SIX MINUTES. The Rules of Attraction is a short film at feature length. It's incredible. THE RULES. is the first MTV style production that moves at the speed of molasses. Its opening scene is another example of this, They decide to run the sequence backward three times. So first you see it, then you watch it backwards. I'm sorry but unless your neat camera trick serves a point, cut it. Number 2: WHY SO MUCH FILLER. There are scenes in this film that make no sense, there are characters in this movie that come in, stay a few moments and then disappear. Eric Stoltz (Killing Zoe) shows up to get a hummer and then is gone, Faye Dunaway (Network) and Swoosie Kurtz (Citizen Ruth),I think to prove they like quirky cinema, get drunk and then disappear. All these scenes do is stretch the running time. If you're going to add scenes to a film why not allow them to shed light on the characters. THE RULES. is 110 minutes and it could have easily been 60 or 70 minutes, maybe I would have liked it better then. Number 3: GIVE US ONE GOOD CHARCTER TO ROOT FOR INSTEAD OF TWO JERKS AND AN UNDERDEVLOPED CHARCTER. None of these characters is worth the time to follow. I think that's mostly due to the fact that the screenplay doesn't provide us with a hero. Someone we can identify with as an audience. So instead it gives us Paul and Sean, two sorry excuses for people. Two people so vapid. I as a member the audience wanted them to leave. Then there's Laura, who is so underdeveloped. You sit there and ask yourself, why? Why am I following any of these people? Number 4: There is something called TONE use it. This film doesn't know whether it wasn't to be a comedy, a drama, or what and so tries to combine them. Too bad nothing in this film is terribly funny or very dramatic. Something tells me there gonna stick this one in the comedy section. Oh Well. I stop here lest a go off on a rant on why this movie stinks to high heaven. There are very few movies I have watched that filled me with so much apathy. THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is not worth the film it's photographed on, all style, no substance and it's a shame cause I think there is an interesting story here. To bad I couldn't find it. ALAS, THE RULES OF ATTRACTION are broken. Don't waste your time with this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Had my doubts .....
Review: As someone who read "Rules" back in the 80's and is basically Ellis' age, I was skeptical of any movie adaptation. The book is a massive patchwork of scraps (both good and bad) that is so incredibly unique it can really only be accomplished with text as a medium. So, my first point is to read the book, it is better than the movie. My second point is, despite my prior point, (still with me) this movie has its merits. Many of the reviews here discount Avary's gimmicky editing, but I found it essential to get the love triangle(s) established. Of course, this movie is no Chinatown and Avary beats us over the head with his final message at the end, but there are far worse films these days. And I found the performances to be above average and somewhat believable. I didn't even know any of the cast members, so I was surprised (upon reading these reviews) that the lead (Van der Beek) was a television star and is obviously suffering from a serous typecast issue. I think he handled the role fairly well. I don't know what that means if you are a Van Der Beek fan, but if you never heard of him, this performance won't bother you. And after reading the review from New Zealand, I can only hope that the neighbor "Kiwi" will soon be a star!
Two disappointments - (1) The movie was not set in the 80's (it was modern day) and I felt like the screenplay cheated me out of one of the best elements of the book - its setting. (2) The features on this DVD were pretty lame and I understand another version is forthcoming - it would be worth the wait.
One additional point - the reveiwer above mentions the feeling of "apathy" as a negative. I assume it was done deliberately just like the book. The audience's protagonists are nonredeeming. It is unusual, but that is the whole point.
Rating: 
Summary: Proof that tricks and gimmicks can't save a bad movie...
Review: "The Rules of Attraction" outwardly has a great deal going for it. Just about no one does it better than Bret Easton Ellis when it comes to capturing the vapid, empty existence of his generation - therefore the adaptation of his novel should be just as scathing, right? In this case, absolutely not. Director Roger Avary has an arsenal of cinematic tricks, violence, and sexual deviance that he lets loose in "Attraction," but all of it doesn't really add up to much. Sure, it catalogues some of the things that go hand in hand with the college generation that the movie shows: wild parties, nearly-anonymous sex, masturbation, homosexuality, drugs, booze, and MORE sex, but the film's pointless plot never really seems to bring meaning to it all. This is not helped by a scowling, one-note performance by James Van Der Beek (trying his hardest to shed his soulful-teen-heartthrob image) and other below-par offerings from Shannyn Sossamon and Kip Purdue. Sure, Avary lets his characters run loose in his vision of modern emotional emptiness, but things go cinematically out of control, and the movie iself dives downward, right with its characters. All in all, "The Rules of Attraction" seems a glorified excuse to show guys dancing in their underwear...
Rating:
Summary: Dark, twisted, and disturbing........I loved it!
Review: I think the main reason I love this movie is because you don't see too many movies like this one. While being a tad comical it digs into the darker side of college life. Of course lots of sex, drugs, and even suicide. It lets you know that college life isn't what movies like Road Trip, Animal House, Old School and others alike would like you to think it is. While those watered down comedies may be fun this is what I wish I saw more of. Just raw harsh realities of being young. James Van Der Beek does an excellent job and finally we can belive that he is capable of being someone other than Dawson. Anyone who loves teen movies like me should definitley check this one out.
Rating:
Summary: The Rules Of How To Make Mind-Numbing Cinema
Review: Directed & Scripted by Roger Avary from the Bret Easton Ellis novel, RULES OF ATTRACTION is 100% UNCUT in NZ! Amazing!
The "story" revolves around a pack of self-absorbed, doped-up college kids- among them Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek in a bad guy role)cousin of American Psycho Patrick; Paul the token gay guy; Peter a country bumpkin who is attending college on financial aid... and who also needs to pay off a whacked out drug dealer who possesses a vocab as extensive as Mickey Rourke; & other characters I won't bother going into because the movie is so self-absorbed and numbing. Just like the story's protaganists.
THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is basically about a group of college kids & the seemy underside of the American Dream of a privileged education & what lies below the surface. The film is narrated in a dull monotone by Van Der Beek's character; which of course manages to capture the tone of Ellis's book quite well- if you've read the book & LESS THAN ZERO, you'll know what I mean.
The first 15 minutes are the most annoying; which is meant to set up the story before the opening creds- including a scene where Van Der Beek is engaging in a violent sex act. Meant to be shocking, but really when you watch it you just think "Hey, check it out! Dawson's doing the rumba!"
After that the film turns into a long, protracted two and a half hours of drugs, booze, sex, rape, suicide, vomit & numerous other bodily fluids; a vain attempt by Avary to be provocative & scandalous; but all the movie does is wallow in its own excess & amounts to nothing more than a self indulgent piece of glitzy trash. This especially applies to the overlong, monotonous montage sequence in the last half hour; where my next door neighbour makes her motion picture debut as "the Kiwi girl"- an entire half second of screen time. (Chances are she'll jump the fence and beat me up if she reads this!!)
Overall, RULES OF ATTRACTION is a movie in which its ambition far outweighs its achievements (What's with the reverse play sequence in the movie? Is it just Avary saying "Look at me! I can do camera tricks!"?). One of the characters also makes a reference to Quentin Tarantino. Subtle. Is Avary annoyed because BOOGIE BOY & MR. STITCH were far from being great movies? Is RULES OF ATTRACTION a vain attempt to be taken seriously by Hollywood for another 15 minutes? If so he's failed in that respect.
The cast also includes Kate Bosworth, Swoosie Kurtz & Faye Dunaway. Ron Jeremy has a cameo as a pianist. Why did they bother? And why should you? Read the book instead, its equally pretentious but will give you less of a headache.
Rating:
Summary: A Surprising and Guilty Pleasure
Review: The Rules of Attraction is thought provoking and amazingly surreal without being cheesey. However, this movie lacks any real heart and never gives you the chance to connect with a character. The soundtrack almost makes up for this, including The Cure and a disturbing scene involving Harry Nillson's 'Without You'. The formula for the Rules of Attraction could of produced a masterpiece of a movie, but something seems to be missing. The film seems to skip through different topics without ever getting a main message across.
Rating:
Summary: YiKeS!
Review: This movie is trying very hard to be a Pulp Fiction for a younger crowd, and you can tell. It mostly fails and the resulting film is an almost unwatchable nightmare.
|
