The Rules of Attraction (2002)

"The Rules of Attraction" is about rich kids, drugs, partying and a glimpse into college life. Since I've unfortunately known people just like this, it definitely scored with me. From beginning to end, this movie is fascinating and I couldn't pull myself away from it. Each scene is great and its a rare film that doesn't bore you. Its a very black comedy yet in many ways it hits on quite a few real issues. Sean is the main character, a drug dealing sociopathic character who falls for a virgin named Lauren who has a boyfriend named Victor. All the while Paul is in love with Sean. It sounds like a simple plot, but in the hands of Roger Avary its compelling. The backwards scenes, the suicide scene, the parties and the character interaction is disturbing yet intriguing. Of course, the book is better but that is generally the case. Still, I liked this better than "American Psycho" for some reason. It just seemed sadly real to me.

My favorite scenes are obnoxious Richard at the restaurant, Sean's excuse to Lauren for sleeping with her friend, the guy going on a debauched trip across Europe and his weird face to face moment with Lauren and the hospital scene.

This is a movie that isn't for everyone. Its a black comedy, but its peopled with strange characters and scenes that will stay with you long after. I loved it!

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.

Buy The Rules of Attraction (2002) Now

Rules Of Attraction is one of those rare movies which doesn't seem to have an audience. Based on the Brett Easton Ellis (author of American Psycho) novel, the basic set-up is a group of college kids including James Van Der Beek as Sean Bateman, who is in love with the virginal Lara, who is also in love with him but wants to save herself for Victor. Oh, and Paul is in love with Sean too. This could well be the story for any good-natured quirky teen flick. However, the abandonment with which these kids snort cocaine, drink and have sex sets it apart as more akin to movies such as Go than She's All That.

The acting is all good, especially James Van Der Beek, completely ruining any illusions that Dawson will remain Dawson forever. As the carefree, cruel and narcisstic drug dealer Sean he is perfectly cast against type. There are also some much appreciated, though slightly pointless, cameos from Eric Stoltz as a corrupt tutor and Faye Dunaway as Paul's mother. Director Avery worked on the script to Pulp Fiction, and it shows. There are flashy narrative effects aplenty time runs backwards, speeds up and there's split-screen. Unfortunately this is nowhere as original as the Tarantino original and doesn't come close to the superior Go, the other teen movie to try and replicate the formula (which incidentally also starred Dawson co-star Katie Holmes). This being the case the drugs, sex, porn, masturbation and loud music come across as aiming to shock rather than the satire that you can't help but feel that the book contained. Brett Easton Ellis's satire was much better adapted to screen in American Psycho and The Rules Of Attraction just comes across as its junior brother that doesn't really know what it's doing but is more than happy to ape Tarantino's visual style and the shock imagery of American Psycho. It's just a shame that through such consistent repetition it just becomes dull.

This being the case it comes across not as a genuine effort to transplant the novel to the screen but as a vanity project for James Van Der Beek to show that he's not such a goody goody. That said, the movie is still enjoyable, even if most of the laughter is raised when we see Dawson doing something Dawson wouldn't do in the Creek, something that you see as being the movie's biggest asset or its biggest flaw. The end message, that no-one ever knows anybody really is impressive, although the characters don't seem to go through any emotional changes to realise this. In particular the ending will leave with that 'so what' feeling inside. Even so, the novelty value of this vacuous movie is higher than most, and it's never less than engaging. It's just that the story obviously has so much potential that you can't help but wish that something better had been done with it.

Read Best Reviews of The Rules of Attraction (2002) Here

THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY RULES THAT AREN'T MEANT TO BE BROKEN... The Rules Of Attraction pulls no punches when it comes to breaking almost EVERY sexual & social more known to man. A not so charming look at college life for the poor, spoiled, upper-middle class at it's seediest & most hedonistic. Suicide, bisexuality, masterbation, pornography, rape, & drug/alcohol abuse abound in this film. Along with some very cool cinematography & decent acting makes this film a great psudo-psycho-sexual shockumentary. Such things as split screens, freeze-frames, running the film backwards, & a very memorable & intense rapid editing scene make you feel as if you have just snorted coke with the cast. Weird and very trippy movie with a GREAT ENDING. This film, of course, will not appeal to all since it's frankness in the above mentioned topics will make some uncomfortable at best. If you can view objectively and appreciate Pulp Fiction, Requiem For A Dream, My Own Private Idaho, & other films in genres such as this, then you will appreciate this film.

Want The Rules of Attraction (2002) Discount?

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.

Save 16% Off