User Reviews

This is a movie that will sicken many people. Roger Avary faced a massive challenge when deciding to direct a film of Bret Easton Ellis' complex and hallucinary book. The book has no narrative focus, no beginning or end and focuses on a group of selfish, morally ambiguous characters. The story deals with drugs, rape, homosexuality,and obsessions of every kind, and despite Lion's Gate's best efforts to market the movie as a american pie-lite slice o' college life- the movie bombed in America.

However i feel that there is much in this movie to commend. While the movie provides its central characters with zero morals, it never paints its youths as all smiling jocks in way american pie did with paper-thin characters such as the "stiffmeister". While the "pie" movies were just funny, this one has its darkly funny moments intermixed with scenes of tragedy and sadness. Don't think teen movie when choosing to see this film, you should be thinking more of Fight Club. These charachters are apathetic lost souls, people who we should be wary of becoming. This is a movie without resolution or love, but it is one worth seeing.

Avary scores a slam-dunk with the brilliant forwards-backwards beginning which manages to stay faithful to the spirit of the source material, whilst also being stylish and exciting to watch. Also a scene where an obsessive admirer of Sean (James' Van Der Beek's character) choses to end her life is as emotionally devastating as anything i have seen in the cinema for a long time. Avary deploys his camera very cleverly in this scene, and it never appears too graphic. This scene in particular really captures the essence of Ellis's book, as does Victor's thrilling trip round Europe. I was however disappointed that Paul's character had been cut down so much. Many fantastic scenes between Paul and Sean are missing from the book, rendering the relationship between the two conventional and flat. The major drawback of the film was that it often felt like a collection of great scenes stuck together without enough glue between them. I think if the movie had run ten minutes longer, or some of the scenes with Rupert, Sean's Dealer had been cut in length, then this movie would have worked better. I must add that i loved the soundtrack and it was one of the best i have heard since The Royal Tennenbaums. Lastly, special commendation must go to James Van Der Beek's excellent portrayal of Sean, the film's shark-eyed, drug-dealing lead. He really suprised me, as i hated this casting decision at first.

I think many of the problems this film had at the box-office (and with critics) were due to the marketing hack-job Lions Gate pulled prior to its release. Watching the trailer and TV ads, one would go into "The Rules of Attraction" expecting another one in a long line of a stupid teen sex comedies. I had the benefit of knowing a good deal about this film well before it came out, and knowing what writer/director Roger Avary was going for with his film. This film is not intended to be another "American Pie," but rather, it is a satire of films like "American Pie," and the totally unrealistic worlds of those films. And Avary pulls this off perfectly, and as far as I'm concerned, "The Rules of Attraction" is a work of sheer genius.

A lot of people have complained about the characters. Are they likeable? For the most part, no, they're very bad people. But that doesn't mean they're not interesting to watch. Since the characters are so realistic, we can gain a lot from watching their actions and the subsequent effects of those actions. Avary's adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' book does a great job of showing that these are bad things the characters are doing. You do not at any time get the idea that Avary or Ellis endorse this behavior, but are showing it as a caution, hoping that people will think twice before acting like these characters. All this probably makes it sound like the film is depressing as hell. And in some ways, I suppose it is. But it's also very entertaining and darkly hilarious. I say "darkly," because you sometimes feel guilty for laughing at such obviously atrocious actions, but you can't help it.

This is a film that relies heavily on acting. With bad acting, the points Avary is trying to make would have been totally lost. Luckily, the cast more the pulls it off. James Van Der Beek manages to make you forget that Dawson guy he's so well known for. He really seems to understand the character of Sean Bateman, and is not afraid to go all the way with his portrayal of this morally bankrupt man. He and Shannyn Sossamon are the highlights of the film. Sossamon's Lauren is the closest thing to a sympathetic character in the film. She does some undeniably stupid things, but she is not a totally bad person, and there are times in the film when you're heart just breaks for her. Sossamon does a great job of capturing the many mixed emotions her character feels. Ian Somerhalder is also very good as the other lead character, the bisexual Paul Denton. Jessica Biel seems pretty vapid, but then again so is her character, so it works fine. Kip Pardue and Thomas Ian Nicholas are also good in their smaller roles. Russell Sams steals the couple scenes he's in as an old friend of Paul's. His scenes are easily the funniest in the movie.

Now I must talk about the directing. Roger Avary has made "The Rules of Attraction" a very highly stylized film. But it is not, as is so often the case, style over substance. All of stylistic tricks, while technically impressive, also add a lot to the overall theme of the film. That, and the fact that he got great performances out of a cast made up largely of WB alumni make "The Rules of Attraction" one of the best directed films of 2002. It's a shame Avary won't get any recognition for his work since the film was unfairly trashed by critics and was a box office disaster. I'm looking forward to seeing more of his work. Hopefully more people will be exposed to his obvious talent the next time around.

This is a very dark and realistic film, something not too common with the vast majority of Hollywood films and, as such, it will not be for everyone. The film blows away the myths about sex and college life that have been perpetuated by countless films before it. People have been offended by this movie. Good. You should be offended that there are actually people this shallow and devoid of feeling in the world (and there are... people like this do exist). I know I am. But that doesn't mean it's a bad film. Rather, "The Rules of Attraction" is a great film, made be a group of very talented individuals, that at once entertains you and makes you squirm in your seat. If the film wasn't as graphic as it is, it wouldn't work nearly as well. It's the realistic, unsanitized nature of the film that gets the point across. It's not for everyone, but if you can handle it, "The Rules of Attraction" is a highly rewarding experience. See it when it comes out on video, since it was long gone from theaters within a few weeks of its release.

Rating: 10/10

Firstly, a confession. I watched the film, read the book and watched the film again. In this review I am going to try and act impartially towards at as an adaptation.

The first fifteen minutes are determined to hook you in; flashy camera work, chronological restructuring and in your face character introductions. We have Lauren, Paul and Sean; where do we go from there, (well backwards in fact), but not very far at all. The rest of the film lacks structure and therefore plays out like a sketch show with scenes lifted from the source material.

The film lacks plot, character arcs or goals. The film is counter-cinema masquerading as mainstream. What the film does have is characters, and the film is its own characters; good looking, clever, subverting and ultimately selfish, it is more concerned with pleasing itself than pleasing the audience.

I enjoyed the film but had a strange suspicion there was something deeper lurking beneath.

This film is the cinematic equivalent of dirty, foul-smelling food remains left in the bottom of the kitchen bin for more than a week, i.e. rubbish. It is peopled by amoral, unlikeable characters with no redeeming features. There is very little in the way of story, so it is not in fact possible to type a spoiler even if you want to. Nothing happens. The protagonists just become less and less pleasant (if that is possible) as the film progresses. There are one or two characters that you might feel sorry for, but since their actions do not make sense, there is little point to them. Make no mistake, this is horrible. Steer clear unless you want to feel dirty and degraded for having sat through it all.

This is the most horrible movie I've ever seen, and I've sat through both Ishtar and all three of the Dead Gentleman films. I had to watch this movie for a research project and got it for free through an interlibrary loan program, but this movie wasn't worth the five seconds it took me to track it down in WorldCat, let alone the four hours (I had to watch Ian Somerhalder's commentary track as well) I spent watching it. The visuals are impressive, I'll admit that, but the lack of any kind of redeeming story quality killed it for me.

The voiceovers and even much of the dialogue (what little there is once the lines containing only expletives are discounted) is stilted and unrealistic and does not flow nearly as well as a writer like Kevin Smith's or even Kevin Williamson's. Not to mention that anyone who's seen both Less Than Zero and American Psycho has already seen this entire movie, only with different set pieces. James Van Der Beek is no Christian Bale or Robert Downey Jr., and only the cameo characters (Fred Savage, Jay Baruchel, Faye Dunaway, Eric Stoltz) are even remotely entertaining. The rest of the characters I just wanted to punch repeatedly every time they appeared on screen.

Everything is overdone to the point of exhaustion, from the backwards-running film to the maniacal laughter of Sean as he finally falls over the edge after the "battle" at Rupert's house. Of the principal actors, Shannon Sossamyn is dishrag-bland; Van Der Beek is trying so hard to be "edgy" that you can see his neck veins bulging; Jessica Biel actually does a good job with her character,it's just too bad her character is despicably irredeemable; and Ian Somerhalder is great--until you realize he's just ripping off Tom Cruise in Risky Business. Somerhalder also needs to just shut his @#$%^& mouth already about the gay thing. It's not like it's hurt Ewan McGregor or Jonathan Rhys Meyers any.

I'm not totally made of stone--I did laugh at Van Der Beek wanking off to "Afternoon Delight" and Somerhalder humping his reflection in the mirror. I also fell off the bed laughing at Van Der Beek's "suicide" (insert eye-roll here) attempt. What a loser.

Avoid this movie like the plague. If you want a stylized movie about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, watch Velvet Goldmine or The Pillow Book.