User reviews

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.

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.

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.

An incisive perspective on the demise of romance and dating in college culture, with a deep dive into how that affects privileged kids at a liberal arts college. The Rules of Attraction is an insightful social commentary on the death of romance and mocks pretentious, self-absorbed, wealthy students who are too vapid and devoid of any meaning/anything worth caring about in their college lives. The dark humor is solid and the three lead performances (James Van Der Beek, Shannyn Sossamon, and Ian Somerhalder) are fantastic! And the eclectic music selection really heightens the atmosphere, emotions (or lack of) in each scene. Side note: the Richard "Dick" scenes are a laugh riot.

This film earns its cult following. The Rules of Attraction is worth a watch or occasional repeat viewings.

100% Bret Easton Ellis. One of the few films made by Roger Avery, 1/2 of the creative genius behind Pulp Fiction. You'd expect this to be a marriage of the two. It has a tremendous amount in common with A Clockwork Orange in terms of editing and character development. Also, if the psychotic nature of the main character Sean gave you flashbacks to American Psycho, that's because he actually is supposed to be Patrick Bateman's younger brother. This is a film about sex that is empty, cynical and depraved. However, with BEE, you get what you signed up for. Go for the ride, if you can handle it.

Sidenote: The Rules of Attraction contains the best vacation montage ever in a movie.

This movie boils down to what it is simply about: The rules of romantic attraction, whether the setting is college or otherwise. This film's characters are immersed in a tangle of relationships, however, the one common thread that binds them all is to want what they can't have, and to have (or have available to them) that which they don't want. Has this ever happened to you? I think it is common in the everyday mundanity of our lives, and that is why it is "The Rule", rather than an exception. Well, this simple rule - vicious and poignant - guides the relationships that unfold in this film. See it if you've ever been in this quandary, or seek a realistic, although admittedly cynical, take on the frustrations of romance and attraction.

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

I heard for years about THE RULES OF ATTRACTION because of the cast and the subject but somehow I always kinda avoided it. Well, last January I left my fears behind and finally saw it and, while I didn't loved it, I still liked it for what it was.

The movie is set in the Camden College in New Hampshire where the students are celebrating the 2001 End of Year party where Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) loses her virginity with an unknown and is filmed by a colleague for a hard movie. Sean Bateman gets close to a blonde and she falls for him only because of some songs played with the guitar.

Then we go backwards (a few months earlier). Sean has all the fantasies you can imagine for Lauren, and ends in bed with Lara Holleran (Jessica Biel) only to regret it because his heart prefers Lauren, and as a result Lauren tries to lose her virginity with counselor Lance Lawson (Eric Stoltz) with disastrous results since he is married and ends up having only a BJ. After some suicide attempts Sean fakes his death managing to upset Lauren but after a while he'll try to talk to her again pretending to simply know her but she dumps him (and Lauren will meet Victor only to see him doing dirty stuff with Lara). After Sean finally realizes that he can't stay with Lauren he will do a trip across Europe and try to close all his deals of the past.

My summary refers to the fact that when you think of a college movie the first thing that pops in your mind are AMERICAN PIE or ROAD TRIP. But this is different, because it focuses on the personal lives of some students and some of their struggles as they continue their floundering life-style. The performances by all the cast members were decent, nothing exceptional. The direction by Roger Avary was focused but also special because the movie begins during the End of the World party, the stories are set after that but in the second half it returns back at the beginning. Although it's original I personally found it a bit confusing because I prefer my movies with a plot that starts and goes straight until the end.

Overall, despite it's a very divisive movie I would recommend it to people that from time to time wants to see always something different because of the different plot-style and situations.

The Rules of Attraction is definitely an interesting movie. One of the most interesting things about it was that my whole view of the movie changed after I had seen it and I saw on IMDb it was based on a novel by Bret Easton Ellis. Everything weird about this movie suddenly made way more sense when you know it's written by the same guy who wrote Less Than Zero and American Psycho. Also helped when I actually remembered ho Roger Avary is.

But knowing the minds behind the movie doesn't help me like it any more.

I started watching this movie only because of Clifton Collins Jr and the fact that I haven't seen him enough - only in one TV Show and one movie, where he only has a small role. Since he was there for, what, three scenes, I didn't exactly get what I wanted out of this movie, and it didn't manage to surprise me positively. Ultimately there was a certain to this movie that I found interesting, something that reminds me of few of my favourite movies about people as old (or young) as these characters.

However that was fleeting since most of the movie seemed to be annoying relationship, sex and romance drama that I didn't actually give a damn about. And still when the movie's summaries talk about a love triangle, I feel like it wasn't even about that. That had so little to do with everything else that was going on. I can't say if the novel is long or not, but I feel there is too much packed into this movie.

I liked many details about this movie. The soundtrack was good, the inner monologues were interesting, the cinematography... well it honestly made me think Clifton Collins Jr was going to jump through the screen and kill me, also I never knew I'd see James Van Der Beek's O-face that close... But the entirety just felt fake artsy and like a really weird mess. When you know who's behind it, it kind of explains that. It makes more sense, but it doesn't make it better

I saw the TV spot for this movie last year and i said to myself that i was going to avoid it at all costs, just another dumb teenage geared movie with one demintional charecters, not to mention the fact that i was afraid i was going to hear that god awfull "She F*cking Hates Me" song if i was going to see it. So, I completly avoided the damn thing until today, when a friend of mind who i greatly respect the oppions of said he heard that it was really good and that we should rent, i decided "what the hell, I'll give the thing a chance" and I am so glad that i did. This film is a work of art, plain and simple. It is NOT making sex and drugs seem cool or fun or anything of the sort. This movie is a complete send off of the idea that young adults can have carefree sex with no side effects. People who say this movie is just a typical teen movie need to look a little closer at what is really going on: every sex scene in this film is shot to make sex as unapealing as possible, in fact, the only time i was less turned on by sex scenes was watching "A Clockwork Orange", it shows sex as being something that when you make it a big deal in your life, it will consume you and draw out any humanity you may have. People who were like me that haven't seen this film yet, people who think "It's just going to be another waste of time" should see this film, and i have a feeling that if you really pay attention, you will see this disturbing masterpiece for what it really is.

I don't understand the reactions to this movie. I caught it last night on DVD - and found it neither "great" nor "terrible". In fact, it's a highly watchable, adult movie with a so-so plot, great camera work and good soundtrack. I preferred "American Psycho" but this movie is OK and most (grown-up) people will enjoy it. It probably deserves a second viewing - but after one watching I'd give it a thumbs-up.

As a college student, I can't quite put into words how depressing watching this movie was for me. Because even though a part of me wants to believe that this isn't how good-looking rich kids treat each other, another part of me has to acknowledge that this is, that there are people out there who truly don't care about themselves enough to respect other people in relationships, sexual or otherwise, that we as a society still find it acceptable to portray gay men as ONLY sex-obsessed, self-deluded persons swooning over strait counterparts and that it's one of the only representations we have in popular or cult films/culture, especially in this one, and that the death of romance has not only been portrayed, but that it's been slaughtered in full-force. Watching this film leaves you with a frozen kind of emptiness inside of you. The reverse-sequences interspersed throughout the film, as annoying and tiring as they are, remind you how backwards and unhealthy these kind of lifestyles are- lifestyles that base relationships (seemingly) on lust only, that don't seem to appreciate friendships formed along the road, that continually define life as one big shopping list of bedmates. I don't know...I hope the film is seen as a warning as to the disconnection and ultimately dissatisfying result being this way leads to. It's kind of rare for me to become so negatively opinionated about a movie, but this movie just struck me in a very cold, unfeeling place. It should be called "the rules of desolation."

Following the success of 'American Psycho', (Well, a success in my eyes) another novel by controversial author Bret Easton Ellis is given the silver screen treatment. This time, with the co-writer of 1994's critically acclaimed film 'Pulp Fiction' as the director, surely there're enough ingredients to make this adaptation an even better one. You'd think so, but unfortunately, it doesn't work as well this time round.

Following an impressive opening of voice-overs feeding off an amusing script, with each character being singled out as the one's we're meant to root for through the excess of the voice-overs and some interesting use of slow motion footage played in reverse to show what other people are doing simultaneously, 'The Rules of Attraction' starts its very steady and very sophisticated fall into nothingness.

Despite the slightly uncanny resemblances to 'Donnie Darko' during this opening, 'The Rules of Attraction' falls away into an orgy of very basic and very primitive scenes and content that has only really been seen exploited in brainless, American teen films of the past ten years. I got the feeling this film really didn't want to be labelled one of those but yes; it's American and yes, it's 'teen' and yes, I'm afraid it's brainless. In fact it was close to being some kind of dark prequel to 'American Pie'.

What this film does is hover around its principal for far too long. We realise this film is taking a multi-strand path and with Pulp Fiction's second in command in the chair, we think it's going to be exploited rather well. To be truthful, there is no real core to this film; it's just entwining student's stories and even then, they're exploited in a rather distasteful and, to be honest, 'boring' manner. I mean; 'how many cigarettes do we have to see each character light up?' 'How many scenes have to be set at parties and how many do there have to be?' 'How many times do we have to see young couples going around pretending they're in love with each other?' According to this film: a heck load. This is the problem. There's no stability in the film. It uses the same content over and over again to try to create so many different things: Love, drama, tragedy, romance but ultimately, these things are never really in the picture and you never get a sense they will ever be with the rather bland, bored expressions the characters have on their faces.

The comparisons with American Psycho are always going to crop up, mainly due to the fact Patrick Bateman's brother stars in this film. He tries to take on a similar persona but in the end, you get no real feeling that they're related at all. All that Van der Beek (Bateman) does is pull a couple of funny faces, uses an alias once or twice and just gets into general mischief due to his drug selling business. In American Psycho, his brother Patrick does his killings through hate and jealousy and what made it even more powerful was the fact he was the only one that did it as everyone else could contain themselves. Here, everybody gets all uptight over each other. Love is the problem and when love is the issue in the film, the term 'rom-com' springs to mind.

With no likable characters at all and only one or two funny scenes that stand out, those being the dinner table scene involving a drunk gay character in front of his mother and his mother's friend with the other being the riotous montage we are shown of one character's Eurotrip (Which was probably all made up due to the amount of women he said he pulled), 'The Rules of Attraction' doesn't hold up during the space of its runtime and doesn't seem to even end correctly.

I thought the first half of the 'The Rules of Attraction' was brilliant but...then I was disappointed in the second half, mostly because the director overindulges in the edginess of the movie and therefore, the story goes nowhere we haven't already been. Editing would have helped.

I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of the actors. Kudos to James Van Der Beek whose portrayal of the misogynistic Sean, blows the lid off of his teen idol stereotype and shows no sign of 'Dawson Leery' anywhere in this film. He definitely creeped me out...and I've known a few misogynists in my time...hey, I think I've even dated this guy! Shannyn Sossamon's touching performance as Lauren, the object of Sean's obsession, is the one humane voice of this film. I could also identify with the character of Paul, played by Ian Somerhalder, whose unrequited gay crush on Sean is all too real. Lastly, I loved Kate Bosworth's small bit, as one of Sean's pickups, where she cries when he sings and plays guitar for her. Too hilarious!

A very complex and disturbing look at Gen X's malaise. Too bad the director tries too hard to make a 'cool' movie instead of just telling the story.

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.

A few years ago I caught "Rules of Attraction" at a friend's house. I was mesmerized by the images I saw and repulsed by other images. But most of all, I was fascinated with my reaction more than the film itself.

I purchased the DVD recently and watched it again. And a similar response: I don't know if I love it or hate it, but I do know I really want to watch the film again. Which, I guess, is a compliment.

The story is that of Sean, Paul and Lauren (as well as many other minor characters) who attend Camden University, and have a very twisted love triangle amongst themselves and simultaneously involving other people. The overall theme is you can never really know anyone and the one you love is not necessarily the one who loves you. Oh, and Sean is the brother of Patrick Bateman from "American Psycho". Although this doesn't matter much.

Some things about the film are annoying. Mainly, the director's obsession with showing things in reverse. There's a point to it, and I respect the way he uses this gimmick to have different stories overlap, but the reverse filming is overdone and becomes little more than a waste of time. I also greatly dislike the end. I won't reveal what it is, but I will say it leaves you feeling like you bought a toy with the batteries missing.

Besides this, the film has three main things that I think are appealing. One: The characters of the drug dealer and "Dick" are both great and provide necessary comic relief. Two: The music is used in such a way that you may never hear the songs the same way again (George Michael's "Faith", Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" and whoever sings "All By Myself"). Three: using the stars of Dawson's Creek and 7th Heaven (basically clean shows) to show intense drug use, suicide, gay sex, masturbation, gang bangs and profane language. This third thing is probably the biggest appeal.

Also, Boone from "Lost" stars... before being in "Lost". Although in this film he's gay and in Lost he's a sniveling boot-licker. So I guess he's been typecast as a feminine character and not really much different in these roles.

I guess I recommend this film, even though my gut reaction is to not recommend it to anyone. At least I can say this: Sean Bateman is much less annoying in this movie than he is in the novel "American Psycho". Rock and roll.

I really don't know why there are so many reviews trashing this movie, like REALLY trashing it. I love this movie. I thought the acting was stellar, it was heavy but with comedic relief, a lot of the shots were interesting, yeah man. So many people are bashing it because it "has no plot" and the characters aren't likable. We're watching these peoples lives, and they're interesting and sad and chaotic and ya know whatever else. Theres no grand plot big woop. I don't really like the characters either, as in I wouldn't be their friend in real life, but it's not real life it's a movie. And I enjoy watching them. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel something im just not sure what. But it stays with you. Decide for yourself.

This movie tries hard to be funky, cute, trendy, with it ( even using time shifting a la Memento), but never goes anywere. Beware the plot summary. There is not really a love triangle. More of a love muddle. The script stank. The acting is worse. I never liked, or cared for any of the characters. The extensive use of narration and voiceovers is a good cluethat the director ( also credited with the script) never conquered the problems of the overlapping plots. I think he watched Pulp Fiction one too many times. I was left with no clue what message he intended to give the viewer. was there a point to the movie? If so, I missed it. And I was looking.

The rules of attraction is by far one of the most original films this decade. It is worth watching alone for the corridor scene, the beginning and the journey through victors travels. The actors in the film portray their roles perfectly. James van der beek really matures since his days from Dawson's creek to show how versatile he can be using a range of different emotions to show Sean as a sensitive yet sinister character. The script is quite Phenomenal especially the humor that is present throughout. Each character explains what they are feeling so the audience can understand their motives easier. The plot has twists and turns that are thrown to the viewer and can leave you questioning how the writer can be that intelligent. Finally the other characters performances are flawless especially Clifton Collins Jr. who really shows the effect of sniffing too much coke. Buy it Watch it tell your friends.