|
|
Perhaps I'm not qualified to review a film adaptation of a Brett Easton Ellis publication, never having read any of his books - but judging by the cinema's representation of him so far, I have no intention of doing so. Although both Marek Kanievska's Less Than Zero (1987) and Mary Harron's American Psycho (2000) attracted praise as acerbic critiques of over-privileged and valueless lives, it's difficult to escape their calculated superficiality and nastiness. The Rules of Attraction is no different, but it also sags under an arsenal of pointless stylistic tics and relentless attempts at individualism that are more dreary and self indulgent than shocking or darkly funny.The Rules of Attraction focuses on a trio of repulsive, narcissistic college kids: the brooding, self-destructive Sean, played by James Van Der Beek (of Dawson's Creek fame), the brooding, self-destructive Lauren, played by Shannyn Sossamon and the brooding, self-destructive Paul, played by Ian Somerhalder. Get the idea? Sean buys drugs from a coke-addled gun nut called Rupert (Clifton Collins Jr doing a weak white trash Samuel L. Jackson impression) and sells them at a premium to his college buddies. Paul is gay and becomes fixated with Sean, as does Lauren, a virgin who is waiting for the right moment and the right guy (ill-advised in such a cynical movie). In typically derivative fashion, all the main characters are introduced at a party and named in freeze-frame at suitably indulgent moments. Their stories are told in flashback, an excuse to use overused tricks like running the film backwards, repeatedly and gratuitously. Each character gets to do a voiceover at various stages in the film, often utilising another cliché, when the dialogue is corrected by voiceover confession ("I feel it too" / "the truth is I feel nothing"). Later we get other techniques like slow-motion and split-screen, rarely with any interesting narrative perspective. Predictably enough, all the main characters are routinely humiliated including various unpleasant set-pieces. Thrown in with all the other self-centred decadence, there's also an unsavoury and over-glamourised obsession with suicide. An unrequited lover slits her wrists in the bath so the water turns red, and soon afterwards, there's an unconvincing suicide attempt by Sean, the most shallow and insensitive of the characters. There's also a scene depicting a drunken rape in which the perpetrator throws up on his barely-conscious victim, captured on camcorder by his friend (and yes, you even get to see it backwards). Presumably these scenes are meant to expose the tawdriness of the character's lives with cutting black humour – and of course, whether they're funny or not depends on the viewer, but they certainly don't offer much insight into the characters, or why they act the way they do. I'd argue there's nothing funny about the film unless you're amused by self-obsessed drunks, bodily functions, spoiled college rich-kids or existential angst. Director Roger Avary worked on the stories of Pulp Fiction (1994) and directed the Tarantino-esque Killing Zoe in the mid nineties. Despite the visual trickery, the chopped-up narrative and the shifting perspectives of the various voiceovers, there's little evidence here of the invention of Pulp Fiction, which transcended all its gimmicks and offered considerable insight into its characters – along with some classic dialogue. But Avary obviously had a good time, since he's now busy adapting Ellis's Glamorama. Somehow, I think I'll be giving it a miss.
Reviewed by Alex King
Reader comments about The Rules of Attraction
jane (Email address withheld) writes:
we couldn't even finish watching this movie- it was terrible. the beginning was bearable, we thought it may be going somewhere but we were sadly mistaken. who is this loser who kills herself? she came out of nowhere. who cares about this loser? and she didn't write those letters loser. also, james vanderbeek did a terrible acting job. what emotion, mad and crazy. i also despised the like 500 close-ups on his hideous mug. let alone the million backwards thing. it got tired in seconds. shannon loving the haircut, and way 2 pine away for the "bf". and y was he talking so fast bout france or soemthing about his amazing adventures there. what a catch. i'd rather watch sexy michael moore (winkwink) in bowling for columbine than this crap. doesnt even get 1/2 a star. more like minus 20. ugh. horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible
dan (Email address withheld) writes:
solid flick, kinda disturbing i guess... but definitly quality. if i had to grade it i would say A-
Leigh Williams (Email address withheld) writes:
I thought the film was really good. Alot of mates said about the back wards thing in the film and didnt like it being used so much. But the film is quality, although hard to pick up on at the first.
Karen Sinclair (u28ks2@abdn.ac.uk) writes:
I really enjoyed the Euro trip montage sequence, very well done. I was horrified by how casual the girl was about being raped! It didn't really ring true for me. James Van Der Beek tried his best but its hard not to keep wanting to ask "What is Dawson doing!!!?" I'm glad I saw it but have no desire to do so again.
Justin D (Email address withheld) writes:
well... umm the soundtrack is cool, but other than that it is only worth watching while moderately drunk. it gets a B- and that's being nice.
Jason C (Email address withheld) writes:
The movie was great, the suicidal scene was awesome, and James Vanderbeek did a great job. This movie talked about love crushes, College, parties, homosexuality, suicides, drugs an alcohol all brilliantly displayed sequentially. Many people can relate to this movie because a lot of us have lived it. (People with problems) Brett Easton Ellis knows what he’s talking about, you can definitively see some life experience in his books and in this movie. This movie targets college students or people with open minds. The backward filming does get annoying but there isn’t a lot of it. Overall, it’s a cool flick! I wish my college had parties like those ones!!
Eric (Email address withheld) writes:
loved it. without getting into critiquing how the movie was written and directed, i was just glad to watch something that depicts many adolescent life styles and experiences as well as hardships that people of my age can relate to. id watch a movie like this any day over some garbage movie involving space ships, talking animals or government conspiracies. but thats just a matter of taste.
Ghost (Email address withheld) writes:
There is nothing wrong with the premise that greed and selfishness are essentially emo and that there is no accounting for taste.
"The Rules of Attraction" is a laborious exercise that takes itself far too seriously. It's like a free-for-all hunt in which sad souls pursue their quarry with cross-eyed abandon.
Roxanne (Email address withheld) writes:
What can I say? A bit confusing at the beginning, a bit shocking and all, but, we have to face it, it's a GODDAMNED REALITY! Things that happen, things that could happen to any of us if we don't keep our minds settled...generaly, I liked it. James Van Der Beek was a huge disapointment to me, I hated his acting. On the other hand, Ian Somerhalder surprised me with his relaxed,sensual interpretation of a homo/bissexual guy who is just in love with the stupidest person he could've met. Anyway, he's hot, and the movie was worth it because of him...
Add your comments about The Rules of Attraction [About]
|
