Rating: 
Summary: The book is an important prerequisite
Review: What I have gathered from reading a number of these reviews is that many of the film's viewers have not read "The Rules of Attraction" by Bret Easton Ellis. First off, here's a little background on the novel:
The novel consists of mainly Sean, Paul, and Lauren; plus Victor, Mitchell, Judy (Lara is her name in the movie; I'm not sure why it was changed), and a number of other characters, who aren't featured in the movie. The novel takes place at Camden, a small liberal arts college where the students' mindless self-indulgence reigns supreme over their pursuit of knowledge. The book is a satirical look at the hedonism of college, but with much truth behind it as well. What makes the book interesting is that chapters are repeated, but, for instance, Sean will tell his side of the what happens in one chapter and Paul will tell his side in the next. For example, at a noisy party, during Sean's chapter, the keg goes dry and Sean complains and says he wants to get a case of beer, and that he'll buy. In Paul's chapter, however, he thinks Sean says they should get a quesadilla, and that he's bi. Case of beer=quesadilla; buy=bi; you get the idea. This whole ordeal makes Paul excited that the two will be going on a date, whereas Sean thinks nothing of it, except that he still wants beer. Each chapter begins with a character's name, and what they have to say about the scenarios they are a part of. Now on to the movie:
The movie illusrates the book's multi-perspective aspect with a few split-screen scenes, which doesn't translate perfectly, but are interesting, nonetheless. The main differences between the movie and the novel are that there are key scenes and chapters in the book which are cut out completely. Then, there are some scenes that are completely made up to make the movie more accessible to those who haven't read the novel. While I did find this problematic, the acting in the film is phenomenal. James Van Der Beek really shows that he has transcended the teen heart-throb status that "Dawson's Creek" plagued him with. While Sean Bateman is not nearly as slimy and intimidating in the book, nobody could have done a better job translating his character to film as Van Der Beek did. I never thought I would ever say it, but James Van Der Beek really is a great actor. I really enjoyed Kip Pardue (Paul Denton) as well. Paul actually got on my nerves a little in the book, but Pardue does a great job of exemplifying Paul's selfish, cynical, yet humorous attitude toward everything. While the movie isn't set in the 80s like the book is, Roger Avary did a wonderful job of creating what I pictured was going on in the novel.
I don't want to give too much away from either text, but if you truly want to enjoy "The Rules of Attraction" in film format, I highly suggest you read the book first. It's like an instruction booklet and a model airplane: if you don't read the instructions, you won't be able to figure out what to do. But if you do read them, it will make a lot more sense.
Rating: 
Summary: college wasteland film
Review: i didn't see this in the theater when most of my friend did. Most of them didn't care for it too much. When i saw it on DVD I loved it. It's shocking(but so are a lot of movies), funny, and, shows how attraction to others can force us to do many things. This movie has great replay value. Be warned this movie has a scene of a disturbing rape.
Rating:
Summary: Misunderstood
Review: From the a lot of the other reviews I have read on this dvd I would say that a lot of people definately misunderstood the film. It might have to do with their age...in fact it probably has to do completely with their age. For those of us who are not over the age of 25 it is probably a film you can enjoy, that is only if you are not sensitive to sex, drugs, and suicide. Especially those of us who enjoy the "weirder" films.
For those of you that did not take an intro to film class the tricks the film has to offer should be blatant. And I should hope you can enjoy the benefits of the filmakers labor.
I give it two thumbs up!
Those of you who do buy this dvd must check out the extras(they are fabulous)!!
Rating:
Summary: well done
Review: This fine film gave me valuable insight into the minds of some of the undergrads I teach. I now pity them more than ever. I really liked the three main characters in this movie, especially the adorable Paul (nice to finally watch a movie in which the gay guy is possibly the *least* hedonistic/deranged character). I think it would be great to show this movie to college freshmen, as an acknowledgment of the hell they're going through, as a reminder that what they really want is "to know" someone, and as a hint that there are ways out that don't involve killing or hurting yourself. But I'm now making the movie sound like a lesson, which it isn't. It's fun, funny, sexy, real, and the music is great. And I'm surprised by the connection to American Psycho, a movie I found boring and empty.
Rating: 
Summary: Forced to give 1 Star, it should be NEGATIVE 5 star movie
Review: The Rules of Attraction is a poor movie of a story told poorly. In my eyes, this movie has no value whatsoever. The "backwards" sequences are neither creative nor fun to watch. (Twin Peaks did something like that years ago...and did it better) The story is so thin, it's almost nonexistant. What little plot there is doesn't make this movie worth seeing. Movies can be good or even great for many reasons. Cinemotography can be breathtaking, stories can be awesome, acting can be brilliant...Rules of Attraction has none of these attributes. Movies can survive poor stories and other problems if the viewer is left feeling uplifted or educated or emotionally connected to a character...this movie does none of this. Finally, when I'm at a loss to explain the existance of a movie, I ask myself two questions...1. Am I better off in anyway for seeing this movie? 2. Are the characters in the movie better off for living through the story that was told...did they learn anything? The answer to both questions is NO.
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: This was a terrible movie. Waste of time and money. period
Rating: 
Summary: Facile.
Review: This film is at the same time excessive in it's overwrought grotesquely iconic depictions of ivy league pin-ups and their depraved exploits (see the unrated directors cut for some extra vapid gratuity) and heavy-handed prurience as to the moral status of the collective cesspool of the sub-human bores it depicts. The film is trite, plotless, pointless (the fabuluously wealthy are despicable and have lost every iota of their 'humananity' is about what it amounts to), so desperately in search of a narrative that it resorts to testing our patience with a patent overabundance of MTV style fast editing, fisheye-lenses, whirling (read:nauseating) camera moves in order to mask the fact that the filmmakers are as empty in their scurrilous pretensions as the subjects who's exploits, trajectories and environs they so, um, lovingly detail. This is the aneamic, jaundiced, rickety third cousin to the film and book versions of Easton Ellis' superior 'American Psycho', which was itself not overflowing with ideas. The inferior source material can only be relegated to that dreaded authorial scrapheap headed: 'blatant padding'.
No fresh ideas, merely a demented proliferation of all those steretypical, badly sketched characters we've come to know and loathe courtesy of the 'American Pie''s, 'Road Trips''s and a myriad of tepid MTV shows; a sort of inversion of all their essentially honorable character traits. Not infinitessimally as interesting as it may sound. Eventually, not even the vile, scummy visual and aural excrement thrust at the viewer at any and every opportunity can prevent the soporifometer from reading a resolute 10. Top marks for a bravura performance from 'Dawson', though.
Rating:
Summary: No Exit
Review: According to the great novelist, Bret Easton Ellis, selfish behavior leads to utter disconnection. This theme runs through all his novels and this brilliant film is the best celluloid translation of an Ellis moral tale. An alternate title could be 'Dawson's Creep' as the brother (Sean Bateman) of 'American Psycho's' anti-hero (Patrick Bateman) leads the way through college debauchery in a series of comic scenes of despair among wealthy hedonists. The direction brings out every nuance of the material and the cast is superb. George Michael's song 'Faith' (it's not on the soundtrack album) is a perfect match for a fun dance scene reminiscent of the 'Pulp Fiction' dance between Travolta and Thurman. This is an excellent, thoughtful film in a solid DVD package.
Rating:
Summary: Rules of Attraction
Review: The attraction of this movie is limited. While there were enjoyable moments, these were far and few between. The most enjoyable parts of the movie were usually the ones involving Ian SOmerhalders character, just because they were funny, and RicharDdick. While the whole time jumping thing was an intresting idea, it made the movie and narrative a choppy mess. SOme of the observations made by the movie about college life and just about the way people think/behave in general were amusing... they weren't conveyed in the most digestible package. At the end of the film I found myself mostly happy the film was over and glad I only spent a few bucks to rent it rather than see the movie in the theater.
Rating:
Summary: Chocolate covered rocks
Review: Okay...perhaps rocks aren't the best metaphores for the inside of this movie...but it's sorta close. I certainly found this movie entertaining...the reversal of scenes was sorta boring sometimes, and actually...the whole movie had many times when it was too slow or couldn't hold my intrest. I felt as if...maybe the script writer was trying to cram too much into this movie, because things seemed to move too fast and you don't really have time to digest what's going on...especially during the scenes where Kip Par Due is explaining his trip. (or maybe that was the point...?) You don't really have that much time to feel for the characters...hey...maybe if they'd' made it as long as the Lord of the Rings movies, lol...heh...nearly 3 hours...then then could've made a good movie...maybe...
|
