Own the rights?
92 out of 126 people found the following review useful: Don't believe the critics... or the God-awful trailer. This is a great film!, 10 December 2002 Author: Jason (compossible@hotmail.com) from Cleveland, OH, USA
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
63 out of 78 people found the following review useful: Brilliant adaptation of Ellis novel, 13 October 2002 Author: Frank (fmarchione@hotmail.com) from Cleveland, Ohio
Roger Avery succedes brilliantly in this impressive and horrifying adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' first novel. I read the novel 4 years ago as a Freshman in college after being blown away by 'American Psycho' and wanted to make 'Rules' into a film myself thinking no one would ever try. So much for that. Anyway, Avery impressed me alot. The series of Patrick Bateman references are also quite amusing for readers/viewers familiar with 'American Psycho'Some reviewers have tended to comment on Avery's use of visual gimmicks, but he puts them to use well. The split screen where Sean meets Lauren is perfect, showing the seperation between them. The backwards film also works, showing how relatively meaningless many of the actions are, while drawing attention to them at the same time.One last thing. People, including here on the IMDB have been criticizing the characters for being one-dimensional. THAT IS THE POINT. Ellis' characters ARE one-dimensional. What you get is a boat-load of information about all of these people and what you are left with is an empty being, soulless, if you will. It works. YOU aren't SUPPOSED to be attached to these characters because THEY are not attached to themselves or anyone else.Brilliant film. Very well acted. Very well done.Frank
52 out of 66 people found the following review useful: Pointless but then, that's the point!, 9 December 2002 Author: DeviousMrBlonde from Germany (originally Ireland)
This movie will leave you feeling so empty. There are no likeable characters and no standard storyline construction (there is no beginning, middle or end as such). But, you see, that's the point. This certainly will not be everybody's "cup of coffee" so to speak. Too many people like their movies to wrap everything up at the end and have everything explained to them and for Lassie to save the day. If you are one of these people then don't bother. On the other hand if you like a movie to challenge you then I am sure you will find ROA superb.Based on the book of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis it is probably THE best book to film adaptation I have ever seen. It captures Ellis' tone perfectly. Take some morally corrupt but beautiful people and show how much of a waste they are. Nobody ever listens to one another and everybody is out for number one. They are all selfish, greedy, and self centred. You are given not one character to like. It is a dark dark comedy about the corruption of excess and moral vacuum left behind. It is in my humble opinion brilliant. You will physically feel that vacuum in your stomach after watching the movie. These people and their actions are the perfect allegory for our ME culture. One significant difference from the book is the timeline which is updated to more current times from the books 80's context.Roger Ebert went to see this twice because he was unsure how he felt about it. In the end he felt it was too unrealistic with regard to the nudity and attitude to it and he couldn't reconcile with the fact that there was no one to like in it. In response he received many letters from students saying that this is exactly how it is on campuses in the US, that this is what they do every weekend. That might give you an indication of the level of reality achieved here… and also an idea of the culture gap. This is another movie where older people may just not get it. When I read Ebert's review his main criticism's centred on the characters but personally I found myself throughout the movie saying for almost all characters `I know someone like that'.Go see it, but be prepared to feel nothing. It's decadent. It's great!P.S. I haven't read the other reviews but if you are silly enough to compare this to American Pie or such nonsense then you are WAAAAAY off the mark.
35 out of 49 people found the following review useful: refreshingly nasty slice of cynicism, 3 March 2003 Author: nick molle from university of manchester
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
24 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Darkly Perfect, 30 March 2007 Author: commandercool88 from United States
For those who like their humor served with a side of cynicism and twisted laughs to wash it down with, 'The Rules of Attraction' is for you. From the author of 'American Psycho', it's yet another film you simply need to experience rather than read about. You just can't put in writing the biting tone that's captured so well in this great satire of relationships and society. But if you want to see me try, read on.The younger brother of Patrick Bateman (yes, the American Psycho), Sean Batemen (James Van Der Beek) attends Camden College where he deals drugs and sleeps with a new woman every night. Bateman's latest womanizing quest brings him to Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon), a virgin who's saving herself for the right person. This happens to be her boyfriend Victor, currently back-packing across Europe. So instead, Bateman hooks up with Lauren's roommate, Lara (Jessica Biel). Meanwhile, Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder) is a provocative student who dated Lauren before coming out of the closet. Now, Paul's current object of affection is Sean, who is completely uninterested. The disruptive lives of these individuals and more will collide and cross paths in this deep, vast pool of misery.What separates a film like this from the other teenage sex comedies is how brutally realistic and honest it is. It doesn't use sex as its only weapon, but exerts social commentary while still earning savagely funny laughs at the same time. It understands its target audience, and instead of handing them another pre-packaged and clichéd sex romp, 'Attraction' caters to its audience by darkly satirizing the unrealistic world of many similar films. And so it is, in a way, 'American Pie' for higher thinkers, those who yearn for more substance.Props to Roger Avary for brilliantly directing and adapting the source material. He directs with a great sense of style that doesn't detract from the film, but only enhances and adds to this bold and innovative film. It dares to be so outrageous at times, it'll have you laughing out loud through the length of entire scenes. Other times, it's twisted sense of humor will leave you feeling guilty for laughing. But you have nothing to regret.'Rules of Attraction' is character driven from the very start. It relies so heavily on its disturbed characters, that a workable cast is detrimental. The people featured here are not people to admire, and they're not here to make the right choices in life. They're bad people who make bad decisions, and through their decisions the effects they have on other characters is explored. Avary squeezes every ounce of talent from his cast, who all seem deeply dedicated to their roles. And with James Van Der Beek and Jessica Biel coming from successful television shows with squeaky clean images, it's no surprise this film caused quite a stir. Both find themselves in a new environment, and both end up excelling. Yet the performance of the film comes from Ian Somerhalder, who helps provide the film's most outrageously funny scene (you'll know when you see it).'The Rules of Attraction' doesn't follow a set path. Its characters don't follow a certain stereotype. It's what helps make 'Attraction' such a great film, which begins with the end. It's a film of cause and effect, and from this opening scene, we work out way back to uncover how these characters ended up the way they did. It's not pretty, and it's certainly not uplifting. It's life. And life usually isn't very pretty nor uplifting. We drift, looking for answers and direction. We make choices. And those choices have consequences. There are no rules to 'Rules of Attraction'. But if there were, I wouldn't tell you. You'd have to watch it yourself to find out.
20 out of 32 people found the following review useful: Others' Comments, 12 October 2002 Author: warped8102 from Columbus, GA
I haven't read all of the users' comments, but the ones I HAVE read seem to not quite get the point of the film. IT'S AN A-D-A-P-T-A-T-I-O-N. Of a book. Not to mention the mystery behind it: Bret Easton Ellis is a brilliant writer, yet all the movie adaptations suck mighty. I personally was laughing all the way through it (except of course during the bathtub scene which I thought was gruesomely fantastic in its portrayal). So even if you didn't get it, at least it was funny. I was thrilled during the addition of Mini-Glamorama, and just to keep everyone on the right track, Sean Bateman is not the "college version" of the American Psycho narrator; if he was, his name would've been Patrick Bateman, Christian Bale's character in the movie. Sean is Patrick's little brother; there was supposed to be a scene where Van Der Beek calls Bale and Bale has a severed head in his hand on the other end, but Bale wasn't available. If you hated it, and it wasn't for you, just think: You could've seen the NC-17 version. Otherwise, don't knock the "shallowness" and "emptiness" of the characters or the actors please; that's not what it was about, and it's not what the book intended. Bret Easton Ellis is a genius.
22 out of 36 people found the following review useful: You better bring back change; Daddy wants change…The Rules of Attraction, 4 September 2006 Author: babubhaut from buffalo, ny, usa
After viewing The Rules of Attraction, one can definitely see how Roger Avary and Quentin Tarantino were friends. Upon leaving their jobs as video store clerks, the two went out and did Reservoir Dogs together, before collaborating on Pulp Fiction. Tarantino took all the credit for those two movies, basically striking Avary out of Dogs completely and only giving him story credit for Pulp. With Rules of Attraction, one sees that there was probably more influence on both films. While this adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' novel contains many clichéd style maneuvers, they all work effectively in telling the tale. Multiple uses of rewind, spilt screen, and the re-showing of events could have been a drastic failure of cheap trickery with less able hands. Here, though, Avary shows some skill and uses everything to further advance a complicated tapestry of story lines and encounters from the stellar cast of young up-and-comers.This is a story about a weekend of college partying at Camden. We have co-eds of all grades, races, and sexual orientation weaving in and out of each other's lives, going from party to party, having altercations, conversations, and a lot of casual sex. James Van Der Beek is actually really quite good breaking out of his good boy image from WB-fare casting. His performance really makes me wish his sanitized image didn't warrant Todd Solondz from cutting his arc from the disturbingly good Storytelling. Shannon Sossamon does admirably as the confused girl rooming with a slut, doing drugs, but wanting to stay pure for the man of her dreams. It is this conflicting nature that runs rampant throughout each character's existence. The dry, cynical humor prevalent in another Ellis adaptation, American Psycho, carries through here as well. Without so much satire from that film, Rules reaches an absurdity at times that makes you think back to your college days and the craziness and emotional stupidity you remember seeing from those surrounding you.I give Avary a lot of credit for his sense of detail too. The soundtrack enhances each scene, where it is used, effectively, most noticeably with the hilarious juxtaposition of Ian Somerhalder and Russell Sams dancing and lip-synching to a George Michael song on a hotel bed with their mothers in the dining hall swapping prescription drugs between sips of vodka. Little scenes like seeing a suicide being lifted into an ambulance, students crying all around, with a girl hitting on one of the police officers in the foreground are brilliant. Avary makes the viewer never take a break as there is no telling what he/she might miss. Also, the casting choices are superb in every instance. Clifton Collins Jr. is menacingly funny as a drug supplier, Eric Stoltz creepily spot-on in a small role, Faye Dunnaway hamming it up in the aforementioned hotel dining scene, and Fred Savage in a gem of a cameo.Even when you think the gimmicks are through, and we have linear storyline normality, we are treated to a fast-paced recap of Kip Pardue's character's trip to Europe. The matter-of- fact nature in which the sequence is narrated during its quick cut montage is great. Supposedly this footage was edited into a bridge film called Gliterrati, to connect Rules to a future film adaptation of Ellis' Glamorama. Unfortunately it has not been released in its full form and Glamorama has been removed from Avary's slate of upcoming films. Either way, The Rules of Attraction allows for the hope that we will see more Ellis-based films. If nothing else I can't wait to break into the collection of his works sitting unopened on my bookshelf, waiting to be read for the past year or so.
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Get over yourself., 10 November 2002 Author: (im00sev@aol.com)
Avary's whole point of this movie is simple: the society is numb. And he does it so perfectly that movie-goers looking for intense action or tears or giggles feel just as numb as the players. The director has done an excellent job here. The characters are without feeling. A rape, a suicide, homosexuality and philandering are all homogenous because this particular society (thank God my college years were not like that)is rapt with the self. That's the whole point. Nobody notices anything because the director wants you to feel the apathy. You may feel bored, but so are all the characters. However, they're bored enough to do really, really unbelievable things without a flinch or the bat of a lash. Like it or not, the duty of a director is to make you feel what he wants you to feel. Avary is fleet, decisive and deadly with his arrow (a Cupid for me). I don't see movies because I have nothing else to do. I want to experience a vision that is not mine. A new one. This movie is fast, it's hot and, like Pulp Fiction in its time, a totally new way to tell a story. I saw it four times and each time, I released the $8.00 freely. Transparently, it's not everybody's movie. But, people should see a movie because it's a movie and not because it's something comfortable or familiar or a blockbuster Hollywood coup. Life's a tough lot, often unforgiving and unfair. There are jerks out there, thank God, who make stuff interesting. I applaud the director always who can put that in my face. Avary simply explains how fortuitous most of us are. It'll be on my DVD shelf, trust.
15 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Good, strange movie, 17 October 2002 Author: fatmaninatrenchcoat from littleton, co USA
I just saw this movie this weekend and I have had to take a week to digest it. You will leave this movie not knowing how to think, except that you hate each and every character (except the girl who sent Van Der Beek love letters). Many people have had a problem with the fact that you dont really care about what happens to the characters. What most people have failed to see, in my humble opinon, is that you are not supposed to care. That is somewhat the point of the film. This is a very nihilistic movie.Avery uses some very interesting tools in this movie, including split screen and reverse motion. The reverse motion is a very original and unique way to introduce the characters and Avery is very smart about knowing when to stop using certain camera tricks. About half way through the movie it goes into a sup plot about Sossamon's "boyfriend" (Kip Pardue) backpacking drug induced trip through Europe. It goes through about three months in Europe with out missing any event of any importance and it does it in about ten minutes. If you like strange and disturbing you will probably like this movie. While not as good, it is as weird and nihilistic as Clockwork Orange or Fight Club. 8/10
29 out of 51 people found the following review useful: Self-indulgent college kids, but I liked it, 24 December 2003 Author: Boyo-2
The main characters are not always as interesting or well presented as they should be, so its very hard to care about them that much. You kind of know their particular plight, without them having to spell it out, but some insight into each person might not have hurt too much. Each character narrates a large part of their own story. However, the director does a lot with the material to keep it lively. You get split screens, backwards running film, slow motion, etc. and it fits the subject perfectly. Cameos are interesting, to say the least - its not every movie where you get to see Fred Savage strung out, or see an insane emergency room doctor. Eric Stoltz, Faye Dunaway and Swoozie Kurtz are also aboard but don't stay around for too long. The character Kip Pardue plays, Victor, gets a bit of a raw deal, as he's seen in the beginning for a minute, then again at the end, when you get a video diary, of sorts, of his escapades around Europe. In the book he's handled differently. I like Kip, who played Sunshine in "Remember the Titans" and was also in that stupid race car movie with Sly Stallone and Burt Reynolds. I had a shrink hypnotize me so I'd forget the name of that one, but Kip was in it, that much I remember. My favorite character by light years is Richard (sorry...he prefers Dick, and loves saying it), who's a friend/lover of Paul (Ian Somerhalder, who's great). Dick is in the movie for about ten minutes but makes a lasting impression, dancing on a hotel bed with Paul to the strains of George Michael's "Faith", then having a hysterically funny scene in the hotel w/Paul and their Moms. NO ONE in the movie is as much fun as Dick, and I was a bit letdown when he exited. He seemed to have a wild sense of humor about how screwed up he was. I've seen this about five times by now. I don't love it, and I have some problems with some of the overkill, but I like it a lot. 7/10.
Add another review
