Rules of Attraction (2002)

Anyone catch this one?

Drug dealers, preppy assholes, sex, high school drama, violence. That's basically the whole checklist.

The movie is so incredibly hyped up, but honestly? It's total garbage—just a shallow, surface-level look at some snobby, privileged lifestyle in the States. It’s mostly just hot guys and girls with zero actual depth to them.

If it weren't for Shannyn Sossamon, I’d probably be calling this the absolute worst movie of the year.

Shannyn Sossamon is absolutely worth seeing $6.75. I am planning to catch the 6:00 screening
.
On a more serious note... I view Rules of Attraction as a sort of "anti-teen" film, much in the same way that Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man serves as an "anti-western." Perhaps that comparison is a bit unrefined—it might feel slightly irreverent to group a James Van Der Beek project with a Jarmusch masterpiece—but hear me out! Roger Avary didn't disappoint me at all, considering he was the mind behind Killing Zoe, such a raw and gritty film from about seven or eight years ago. Rules of Attraction possesses that same rawness, yet it feels a bit more coherent and ultimately stands as a very solid adaptation of Easton Ellis.
The technical flourishes, such as the reverse filming and the dual-segment shots, are quite clever, even if the film leans into them a little heavily at times. There is one particularly beautiful shot featuring James Van Der Beek and Shannyn Sossamon that begins as a split-screen POV, followed by a ninety-degree camera pan where the two frames seamlessly merge into one.

The distributors here in the States tried their hardest to market it as some shallow Teen comedy, leaning heavily on sex appeal and those flashy MTV-style promos to sell it...
In my estimation, however, the film completely crashed and burned—a genuine shame, if you ask me.

van der beek sucks 🙄
I haven't really seen anyone raving about this "provocative" little flick about teen rebellion and all that deviant behavior
maybe I'll just find it on Netflix or something
honestly, I can't deal with Dawson—he’s just way too cheesy for me 🙂

The movie is based on a novella written by a guy back when he was under 30—around 1987, if I recall correctly—and he actually lived that lifestyle. It’s basically a sequel to the book "Less Than Zero," and both are considered staples of American literature. When I read the book back in high school in '88, the whole thing felt shocking and unbelievable... that’s pretty much all I remember. People were already hailing it as some kind of masterpiece, but personally, I think it falls into that category of unseen bullshit that millions of American novelists (since there aren't many actual writers left) spew out every single day. Still, I guess it's fine reading material for a subway ride or while sitting in a Starbucks.
Realistically, the film makes zero sense. It doesn't offer any real insight or even a hint of reflection from any of the characters. Everything just boils down to basic nonsense and hedonism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's nothing special. The acting is pretty pathetic, too. Honestly, I feel like I wasted my $3.95 on this rental.

Next!

Hands down, this has to be the best American movie from the last year.

Hands down, probably the best American movie released in the last year.

Just give me one solid reason why. 😉

Brilliant direction. This movie never drags for even a single second—it just keeps moving. Every single character is fleshed out with such precision, and the script works on every level imaginable. The acting? Phenomenal. The dialogue? It’s witty, biting, and feels incredibly real. Plus, it captures life at those liberal American college campuses perfectly...

Do I even need to say more?

'Sean Bateman: I only slept with her cause I'm in love with you!! '

anything else needed?

Enough for those who actually care. Though, I guess it's a bit dry. That top paragraph could pretty much apply to any decent movie out there.

Here’s something that isn't just dry commentary:
Pay close attention to the sequence where the female lead's guy travels through Europe. It’s this whole little, incredibly well-crafted montage edited with such a wicked rhythm—each shot lasts only a fraction of a second, yet somehow it manages to pack in more actual adventure than most entire movies.
If you really want to soak this one in, try running an analysis using slow motion. Honestly, the results are incredible.

it's this tiny, incredibly polished sub-film, edited with such a wicked rhythm where every shot lasts barely a fraction of a second. honestly, there's more adventure packed into those moments than in most full-length features.

Alright, sure, you're describing that classic MTV aesthetic, but... what's the actual point of that sequence? What does it actually signify regarding the character you're talking about or the movie as a whole?

What, you want me to sit here and give you a play-by-play summary of the movie?

Look, just watch it, figure it out for yourself, dive deep, and enjoy the ride..

watch, discover, analyze, enjoy..

Read it, watched it... didn't really find much. And if there’s no revelation, there’s no real payoff. The book sort of hints at things—that whole social vibe tied back to the Reagan era in the US—but Easton Ellis doesn't actually have much of a point to make. His characters are just... pure nothingness. The movie works as entertainment, I guess, which might be enough for some people, but if I'm looking for pure entertainment, I'll go watch the circus instead of a film. Anyways... let's close this 🙂

I find myself wondering if both Rules of Attraction and American Psycho—both penned by Easton Ellis—actually capture the essence of the nineties much more than the eighties. Or perhaps it is merely my own subjective perception of their atmosphere?

Anyway, Arthur Sanchez64, I hope all is well with you..!

Why does it always take forever for movies to hit theaters down south? Anyway:
The directing is top-notch, and trying to change how these characters were portrayed would have totally ruined the vibe (that split scene and the little segment about Europe are gold)... Dawson really leveled up here, and Shannyn Sossamon is just brilliant...
The issue is that nothing feels quite grounded; the characters still come off as a bit shallow by the end. I get that they’re supposed to be these emotionally hollow, hedonistic kids—which they nail perfectly—but when the script tries to pull at the heartstrings, it misses the mark. Everything is there, but it just doesn't land.

Oh, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being a Teen comedy or some romance like the trailers claim. Did anyone actually watch this? Has anyone even heard of Easton Ellis??...

Definitely worth a watch though.

the characters just end up feeling kind of shallow again

Isn't that basically the whole point of the book, though? The issue is that when you try to pull that same concept off on screen, it just doesn't work.

Personally, I actually dig how, despite a pretty shaky start, Avary managed to pull together a flick that—as much as it seemed like it would be—isn't just some mindless dive into pure hedonism. That point they hit at the end totally caught me off guard, and honestly? It was a good surprise. 👍

I was reading this interview with Avary the other day, and she actually mentions that Sean Bateman is supposedly Patrick Bateman’s brother. I had absolutely no clue about that connection!
I actually picked up Rules of Attraction after seeing the movie, but honestly, I couldn't get into it—it felt a little too "teen comedy" for my taste, like the author hadn't quite found his footing yet. But then, right around page ten, while they're traveling through Europe, there's this random bit where they meet these two guys in Greece who teach them how to translate Bruce Springsteen songs into some local dialect. 😁
I mean, Rules of Attraction is a decent enough movie, even if Dawson is a bit much. And don't even get me started on how unrealistic it is that Ian Sommerhalder just can't find anyone to sleep with. Personally, I think I prefer it over American Psycho; even though that one is more elegantly directed, it veers way too far from satire into pure parody, mostly because Christian Bale's acting feels so off.

Man, that 'trip across the States' scene drags way too long. If Avary had just cut out all that filler and kept only the parts that actually show who this guy is, we wouldn't be sitting there overthinking the subtext while it's happening (I mean, it was cool at first, totally sucked me into the chaos haha)... then that final shot of the plane with the 'Victor' title would've hit like a total 'wow' moment. Instead, you figure out what the poet is trying to say halfway through and you're just waiting for him to finally say it.

other good/memorable bits:
those Lauren/Sean Bateman POV shots—though they could've hidden the intention better so you wouldn't go 'oh, okay, they're gonna meet around that corner'

the suicide. Not just because it's technically solid, but because it tricks you into thinking you're about to see some hot boobs, playing with the character's intent (we don't even see them, but whatever, the details are what matter here) just to pull a massive 'what the fuck?' move once you realize what you actually witnessed. Also, props for keeping the camera on her face in close-up during the whole process... at the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters, we all know what blood looks like.

uh, uh, uh, one more thing (god knows why this scene hits so hard 😁) and from a screenwriting perspective, the suicide is handled well—basically backwards. You see the aftermath first, and then the reasons, which then ripples through the rest of the plot and shifts Lauren's motivation.

That hospital stuff with the crazy doctor... gotta admit, I didn't get it. Unless there wasn't supposed to be anything to get... regardless, I was just grinning the whole time watching it—super bizarre, felt like something Will Burroughs would write. 😁

The whole flashback gimmick was a bit dumb, mostly because they overused it at the start (not that it happens constantly, just that the shots linger too long) that by the middle and end, the whole concept loses its punch.

Bottom line, the movie is just pure entertainment. The script feels a bit 'seen it before' and the ending point is too heavy-handed and unbelievable given the characters we've been following.

Anyway, since I'm writing my first massive post, might as well mention American Psycho. 😁 Christian Bale was decent. Or rather, he played it exactly how the movie needed. Some might call it a matter of taste, but what else is there to debate? Let's leave it at that. 🙂 The tone shifts from satire to straight-up fantasy as the madness ramps up anyway.

Look, let me backtrack a bit there. I’m not saying Christian Bale is a total wash—I mean, that scene where everyone is just swapping business cards? That was actually killer, super subtle and sharp. But honestly, I feel like he should’ve let that sense of deep-seated frustration and that "I'm not good enough" competitive anxiety bleed through the whole movie more naturally.
To me, American Psycho works best as this biting social satire—kind of a dark comedy of manners, you know?—regardless of all those Bateman fantasies, which I think the movie leans into way more than the book does. I really think it would’ve hit harder if they hadn't played Bateman as such a cartoonish psychopath; adding just a little bit of ambiguity or internal conflict would have made him so much more terrifying.
By the way, can we talk about that song choice during the suicide scene in The Secret...?