Rating: 
Summary: An addicting dark comedy.
Review: 'The Rules of Attraction' follows three characters: Sean(A drug dealing psychopath in love with Lauren) Lauren(An eccentric virgin) and Paul(A bisexual guy who is Lauren's ex and is in love with Sean).
Filled with interesting filming and editing the movie is addicting to the very end. The plot is a little underdeveloped however. 'The Rules of Attraction' is a very dark comedy, and may not be for everyone.
The suicide scene is painful to watch, because of your feelings for the character not because of gore. And there are more funny scenes than depressing ones, including a description of a European vacation and character named Richard "Dick" at lunch. In the end, I felt very attached to all the characters. The movie is based on a novel, which after seeing the movie, I am very interested in reading.
I would suggest this movie to anyone who likes dark comedies and anyone who likes more artistic films. I would not suggest this film to people who don't understand black comedy.
Rating: 
Summary: You're better off to just read the book
Review: I read the book version of this movie before I saw it and I have to say that the book was a lot better! The movie left things out and just didn't grab my attention the way the book did. I'd skip the movie altogether and read the book instead.
Rating: 
Summary: What a Horrible Movie!
Review: Ok, so just like the rest of you I saw that trailer for this movie and thought "Oh, sexy, fun, Now! I need to see that!" Thank God I missed this movie's ten seconds in the theater because I saved 5 bucks since I only had to rent this mess. So, what is wrong with the movie. Where to begin. The Direction of the film feels like a cocky NYU film student trying to show off his effects skills. The Acting is bad all around. The Story goes nowhere. None of the characters are relatable or in anyway nice. The Trailer for the movie tries to appeal to the younger audience by showing drugs, sex and James Vanderbeek half naked. If he was naked in the movie I don't remember, if he kissed a boy it was only in that boys DREAMS, because the gay character in this film is pathetic and stereotypical. He spends the whole film chasing after straight guys who beat him up, yeah there is a message to send to the youth of America! Skip this one and watch Cruel Intentions.
Rating: 
Summary: The Madness of Youth
Review: The Rules of Attraction might very well be the best comedy I saw in 2002. Yes, read this right. A comedy. I found myself laughing so hard at times that I had to watch the movie twice to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Only the twisted mind of Bret Easton Ellis could create the basis for this film. On the other hand, this is also a dark, pessimistic film with very little hope in store for its characters. Here, we follow three young people who live their College years through drugs, parties and sex. They are all without an identity, all without a life so to speak. The only thing they love is feeling sorry for themselves and making everything seem worst than it is. You can't care for these characters in a way that other movies will make you care. And yet, you can't help but feel sorry for this lot of blinded kids. They are so enthralled with their own little world that they forget about everything else that surrounds them in reality. This is not a movie for that faint of hearts. But this little piece of cinematic genius (some of the shots are so brilliantly done they left me totally speachless) deserves to be seen by a wider audience. If only people could open up and admire something that is this dark and yet so extremely funny, they would discover a whole new cinematic world.
Rating:
Summary: Horribly advertised, brilliantly executed...
Review: I'd really like to meet the responsible party who marketed this film since they obviously had little idea about what 'The Rules of Attraction' was trying to convey. Or perhaps, more simply, the marketers were trying to bring in the largest audience possible by making it seem like this was a college soap opera that anyone could watch and understand. Having read some of the reviews for this movie, its clear that those who appreciated it understood the point of having a story (and story telling device) that is concerned primarily with style, not substance; a story that has no real likeable characters (or at least, hero or heroes), and imagery and language that is overly gratuitous and disturbing. This film essentially is a mirror for youth culture today and in many ways is simply a documentary of modern life. I could write a lot more about this movie, but ultimately, that, for me, is what it comes down to. Although I haven't read completely any of Bret Easton Ellis' works, I think a lot of credit must be given to him for the original story, though Roger Avary was a large part of this movie's making, and he did a brilliant job. If you are like me and fully understood and appreciated what this film was concerned about, then you find yourself deeply gratified that stories with such relevance and importance are still being told.
Rating: 
Summary: Not what I had expected !
Review: I had seen some really good reviews for this film and the previews were intriging. The characters are under developed; the cinemaphotography was the best thing about the movie. There were some scenes that reflected the title, but overall it was meaning less dribble. I thought it to be one of the 10 worst films of this last year. I thought that it had great potential, but someone missed the boat all together in prepping the book for film. A BIG disappointment. Rent this; but do not bother with the purchase.
Rating:
Summary: Meh
Review: Banal, I know there must be people who will think that watching people masturbate, shoot coke up their nose, commit suicide and use the toilet on camera is worty of 5 stars. If you do then this is for you.
The chatacters try to be so damn tough and real that they end up being unbelievable. Rent it if you must, but procede with caution.
Rating:
Summary: ISNT AS GOOD AS AMERICAN PSYCHO
Review: I loved american psycho and i gave it 5 stars on amazon.com and i also liked american psycho the book and i was hoping this would be like that - it is in certain ways with the depiction of the shallow characters and the way the charachters acted but this was no american pscyho! - they have james van der beek playing a sick sex crazed drug dealer lol trust me people james van der beek shouldnt have been chosen for this role- they shouldve had another actor play this part instead. CHRISTIAN BALE was perfect actor to put in the role of patrick bateman.i cant beleive they said this james van der beek character ( sean bateman )is supposedly his brother- in the book i can understand it but not in this movie - american psycho was a brilliant movie and a amazing story and depiction of 80s life and has you thinking the whole time, this movie -well , when it comes down to it its actually quite boring all it is is tons of pointless sex and violence - i was really trying to get this film since i like other bret easton ellis's storys n films but at the end it left me disapointed. it has some clever moments and makes you think but in the end it leaves u disapointed. i think i got the story but it just wasnt that great- definetly cannot compare this to the masterpiece american psycho. thats all i have to say.
Rating:
Summary: Dawson doesn't suck, he's great!
Review: Firstly let me say i was not let down considering how much I love the book. I was glad to see the scene with "Dick" was so faithful to the book. I was pleased as this was easily the best part of both the book and the film. The acting in this film is particularly good with James Van der beek giving a stirling performance. Suprisingly he is an edgy and competant actor and I have to admit I wanted him to suck because he used to play Dawson. He proved me and many others wrong. The only criticisms I have of this film are: 1: The book is set in the 80's but there are references to Tarrantino (yawn)and a few other post 80's things in the film, although the soundtrack was 80's. 2: It's horribly, terribly over directed! The cheap camera trickery and split screen bla blah blah just looked like a lame attempt to make the film more iportant or cinematically relevant than it will ever be. Basically the film is badly directed, heavy handed and is so convinced of it's own importance that it lets a great cast and story down. Ignore the ego of the director and the rest is quite good indeed.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't take itself as seriously as some critics do
Review: Contrary to many of the reviews (both here and in the press) I felt that the film succeeded in giving the viewer a somewhat unique perspective on a familiar theme. Of course it's not the first film to portray self-obsessed college kids desperately trying to make some sort of emotional connection. The first scene of the film makes it clear that their efforts fail, which allows the story to unfold as a long, intertwined flashback. Anyone who has read the novel (or any of Brett Easton Ellis's work) will already know that his characters are generally emotionally detached, and the characters in "Rules of Attraction" are no exception. Their detachment goes beyond being jaded, and ultimately is almost a form of self-imposed emotional safety. It's debatable whether such detachment reflects reality, but this film doesn't pretend to be some sort of hyper-realistic depiction of college life. I considered both the book and the film to be highly stylized expressions of a certain type of person in a certain type of environment. I did not think that it contained too much sex or drugs, especially compared to certain other films that have been critical successes. It's not surprising that some viewers find this sort of film to be offensive or frustrating or just plain boring. It's not for everyone. But for what it is trying to do, I felt it was very effective and I liked it.
| 
