tlashop.com

Amos Lassen wrote on 02/23/2011:

“THE RULES OF ATTRACTION”
Lost Souls
Amos Lassen
The Rules of Attraction” is a twisted story about sex, drugs, and college life. Three students at Camden College are involved in a love triangle. Sean Bateman, a womanizing drug dealer is love with Lauren, a virgin but who is more infatuated with her ex-boyfriend. Then there is Paul who is bisexual and used to date Lauren before he came out. Paul,
However, is interested in Sean who he thinks is bisexual. Throw in a bunch of other characters and you have a mess. In fact everyone in this money is suffering from some kind of problem and each is only looking out for him or herself. We can tell right away that no good can come from these people and we are told so right in the beginning as the first scene of the movie is the end of the story and the rest of the movie tells us how we got to that point. In fact, a more apt name for this movie would be “Les Miserables” as that is what everyone turns out to be.
In reality the film is a satire of those crazy teen movies like “American Pie” and “There’s Something About Mary”. If we look at the movie like this, it is ingenious. If, on the other hand, we look at it as just a movie, it bombs.
The characters are not the kind of people that you would want to call friends but that does not mean they are not interesting. The problem with them is that we all know someone like them and they are realistic. Without the acting, this film does not move and the cast manages to succeed at that. For a young cast, the acting is good, better than what I had expected. His direction, however, is highly stylized and the tricks that Roger Avary employs just do not always work but by and large when I consider what he had to work with, his job is admirable.
I think a lot of people were expecting a fluff movie with a young cast and what they got is a dark and realistic movie. It destroys some of the myths about drugs and college life and because of this, the movie has been deemed offensive by many. The treason for the offense is that many cannot understand that there are really this shallow who have no feeling.
There seems to be no narrative focus, no beginning and no end and the focus is on a group of selfish ambiguous characters who traffic in rape, drugs, and homosexuality and general obsessions. We don’t see smiling happy college kids. Rather we are given kids who have problems and they aren’t pretty problems either. The characters are lost souls, pathetic people that we do not want to emulate. There is no resolution, there is no love.
Everything seems to be overdone and excessive. The first time I watched the film I thought that my distrust in humanity had been validated and that perhaps I should consider becoming a loner. The characters are vile and horrible and not much more than amalgams of the worst that society has to offer. The only character that elicits sympathy dies right way. The satire on wasted youth never quite reaches its conclusion and comes off more as sour grapes.
On the other hand, the movie can be classified as brilliant. It was true to the novel from which it was adapted and resented real characters even if we d not want to admit that people like this really exist. We are not supposed to like these people because they are too much into not being attached to anyone or to themselves. On first viewing I found the whole movie to be an appalling mess. On second viewing I eased up a bit and by the third viewing I was really into it. But then if it takes three viewings to appreciate a movie. I wonder if it is worth the effort. It is a challenging film. When sex means no more than a handshake, you want to question our value system. Likewise I am still questioning “The Rules of Attraction”. Maybe one day I will shout its praises. Right now I am not in the mood for a fourth viewing.

greggy wrote on 04/02/2010:

The 'college' scenes just didn't ring true for me. I knew people who partied like that -- and they flunked out. For that reason alone, I would tell a friend to skip this one. There are lots of other reasons not to watch.

I found Van Der Geek's performance to be a little too one note (angry) for me. He just came off too antisocial/schizoid. I can't imagine ANYONE hooking-up w/someone like him (even messed up on drugs). Very few of these people seemed able to relate to each other, and even less capable of likeing anyone.

Rumor had it that Sommerhalder and Van Der Geek really hated each other during filming. I was told that his homophobic rantings were to get back at (the closeted) Van Der Geek; didn't work!

I liked the use of the 'rewind' to tell the three perspectives in this movie. I didn't find much character development or depth in the acting (few of the actors seemed able to express more than one emotion in their performances), and I blame both the director and Ellis for this mess. It's hard for me to relate to unlikeable/shallow characters, and this whole college seems to be nothing but those people. I usually look forward to Kate Bosworth on screen, but she was totally wasted in this movie.

I think this movie would have worked for me if all the actors played different parts. It really seemed miscast.

RandySix wrote on 07/27/2004:

The movie is based on the idea kids in college screw around like rabbits. It was suppose to shock America but with the revelation that collge is all about senseless animal sex. In Italy the name was changed to the "Animal College".
It did better in Europe than in America. The only thing I found disturbing were the Rude anti-gay comments made by the actor Ian Somerhalder first in the DVD review and then a month later in Albercrombie and Fiche Magazine his reputation for disrespecting gays even got published on 365gay.com in April of 2004. I am glad I saw the movie before I heard about Somerhalder else it would have stopped me from renting it.

John Nail wrote on 07/18/2004:

In one scene in this movie, Jessica Biel and Shannyn Sossamon's characters do so much coke that Biel's nose starts to bleed. "Rusty pipes," Biel's character giggles as she wipes the blood away. This line also is uttered in the movie of Brett Easton Ellis' "Less Than Zero" and while using it in "Rules" seemed intended as a joke, it also highlights how much of a "Zero" retread "The Rules of Attraction" is. Although this time around it's being sold as satire and is free, thankfully, of any "Just Say No" moralizing, all the "Less Than Zero" elements are there: beautiful young people with more money than depth go to a lot of parties, get drunk, do a lot of drugs and have a lot of unsatisfying sex. Set on an east coast campus where students, besides all being on a first-name basis, are more likely to be instructed to give a professor a blowjob than write a term paper, "Rules of Attraction" is both plotless and soulless, though there are attempts to make characters played by Sossamon, as the "sensitive virgin," and Ian Whathisname, a homosexual smitten with James Van Der Beek (who in turn wants Sossamon), as possibly capable of emotions that go beyond the dull tingling of their crotches, or the burning in their noses. The performances are good enough, though I think I enjoyed Faye Dunaway and Swoosie Kurtz's small parts as pill-popping moms more than any of the leads. Van Der Beek seemed to turn into Kiefer Sutherland (circa "The Lost Boys") in several of his scenes. He also utters my favorite line: "Since when does fucking someone else mean I'm not faithful to you?" I know director James Avery has been slammed by some for pushing style over substance, but style is really all this movie has. I don't know if "Rules" would be watchable without all of Avary's flourishes like split screens and reverse action. He's turned Ellis' trashy book into... well, a trashy movie, but what glittery trash it is. And there are a lot of scenes of cute guys in their underwear. (I haven't listened to Ian Whatever's homophobic commentary, and hearing about it now certainly has me downgrading his physical appearance. If he was so "disgusted" by kissing Van Der Beek, he could've turned the part down; I'm sure any number of actors would've jumped at the opportunity. Hmmm, me thinks she doth protest too much. Perhaps Ian should give Donna Summer a call and find out just what kind of damage homophobic remarks can do to a career.)

adam (romulus_gwydyon@yahoo.com) wrote on 11/19/2003:

this is a good film, in maybe an ironic sense because it's certainly not likable. the plot is cynical to a ridiculous extent, all the main characters have little to no redeeming qualities about them... and that's why ian sh--whatever the hell his name is--made remarks that, while not exactly fortunate, contribute to the overall feeling of the movie. let's face it: paul sucked. it was an interesting choice to make him gay in the movie, as opposed to the bisexual character in the novel. but it really worked. it made him more vulnerable and pathetic. his "fatal flaw" was that much more apparent. and the dynamics between the characters were that much more disgusting and pitiful, to the credit of the film and not the other way around. van der beek and sossamon were both admirable in their roles (as were supporting players beals and--easily the best thing about this movie--russell sams, who was over-the-top and insane but maybe the most relatable). the moral of the story is: nothing. this is all just a flashy, vacuous, painfully pointless existence. and the movie got that message through loud and clear, hence the three stars; if you have even a little bit of a nihilistic edge about you, you'll appreciate this film. one more thing: ian "whatever" took another more disturbing role as a homosexual who wanted to fuck his brother on an episode of law and order: svu. he took another gay role. now I would admittedly be turned off if I had to make out with a woman, but I also wouldn't whine about it. he's going to have to get used to not whining about it because he'll need to take some more homosexual roles if he wants to continue working. I say this in total seriousness: he gives off a faggy vibe. not homosexual, persay, but rather the subculture staple of what a homosexual is. whether he likes it or not, that's a big part of his type as an actor, that's the kind of energy he gives off. so taking a dump in the trough that feeds him is only going to hurt him. if I was an actor looking for decent parts, I'd be damn happy to play a heterosexual, even if it meant having a few awkward moments (so jesus, get over it, you're getting paid for godsake).