Rules of Attraction (2002)

Ambivalence is always a good thing. You’ve got a point there, Susan Wright12. But honestly, with that touch of fantasy thrown in, the movie works as a pretty decent satire. I didn't even realize he was just daydreaming until like the last third of the film. hmm.. that song choice in the scene though.....zzz... brain is fried. Someone else will probably show up tomorrow with the actual answer. 😳

Harry Neilsen, man... life just isn't the same without you.
Seriously though, what an absolute banger of a song.

slyrider16 said:I also have to hand it to them for deciding to keep the camera locked in a tight close-up on her face during the entire dying process... at the end of the day, that's the only thing that actually matters in a moment like that. We all know what bleeding looks like.

It’s interesting you brought that up. 🙂
I remember reading this directing book from a university in Chicago that went into deep detail about using "Dutch angles"—or tilted shots, if you want to be technical—though I haven't read much else on the subject. It's something you rarely see used effectively in film, but in this specific scene, they executed it so textbook and perfectly that it was honestly mind-blowing. Kudos to Avary.🙂

I honestly find it wild how people are expecting something massive from Avary just because he was in Pulp Fiction...

It’s even weirder to me when folks try to hunt for some "deep" subtext in a movie that’s clearly just meant to be pure entertainment... I guess if you're looking for that, you might as well try to find profound meaning in Armageddon or Pearl Harbor...

Personally, I thought the movie was a pretty easy watch. It’s solidly directed, doesn't overstay its welcome with a heavy message, and avoids a messy script. While the ending felt a bit underwhelming, the acting was great, there were a few scenes that easily rank among the best of the year, and it actually had a good sense of humor...

Anyway, it was definitely one of the more fun watches this year...

driftingowl27 said:Interesting you brought that up. 🙂
I remember this one directing book from a university in Chicago that goes deep into using the "Dutch angle" (honestly, I haven't read much else on it). It’s something you rarely see used properly in movies, but in this scene, they executed it so textbook and effectively that it was just insane. Props to Avary 🙂

can you actually try to remember what that book said exactly? 🙂 the whole "slanted shot" thing doesn't really click with what we're watching in this scene. how does that theory even work? or at least tell me the English term if you know it, so I can look it up online myself...

Calling this a "fun movie" isn't exactly my first thought... most of it feels intentionally draining.
But hey, maybe it's just me.🙄

Avary was in Pulp Fiction,

Avary just wrote that one little part in Pulp Fiction where Christopher Walken talks about the watch. That’s really it. So, yeah, you can't exactly expect much from him.

but honestly, that’s hands down the absolute best part of the whole movie. 😁

but honestly, that's the best part of the movie.

Well, depends on who you ask. 😉
If you ask me, that whole scene is just filler.

Does anyone actually have a single good reason why you SHOULDN'T watch this movie???????
-------------> KATE BOSWORTH <--------------
👎 👎 👎 👎 👎😠 😠 :😠 😠

Maybe this thread has been around for a while, but I just finished watching the movie and I'm still processing everything. I'd love to hear what you all thought if you've seen it!

I just watched it, right after finishing the book. The book is obviously way better, but the movie isn't half bad either. Honestly, those terrible reviews caught me off guard—I think it’s sitting at maybe 40% on Rotten Tomatoes? Personally, I thought it was solid; it actually surprised me in a good way. The weakest link is definitely the acting. J. van der Beek is way too stiff, and the guy playing Paul is just off. In the book, they dive much deeper into the whole Sean-Lauren-Paul love triangle, whereas the movie keeps everything pretty superficial. That said, I loved the cinematography. The split screens, the reverse shots, the handheld footage from the trip through Europe—that stuff was fantastic. Some scenes are genuinely magical, like when Lauren and Sean meet, or that shot of Sean standing in the snow with a snowflake landing on his face and looking like a tear. Even the soundtrack hits the mark. Bottom line: it's an above-average film. But seriously, you have to read the book. As for me, I’m gearing up to start reading American Psycho today.😛

Has anyone seen this one?

Here’s the lowdown:

Rules of Attraction, an American film (rated R)
(THE RULES OF ATTRACTION, 2002.)

It's a drama. Lauren Hynde (S. Sossamon) is a student at the prestigious Camden College on the East Coast of the USA, where she spends her time daydreaming about losing her innocence with a hot classmate, Victor (K. Pardue), who happens to be hooking up with her roommate, Lara (J. Biel). But things take a turn after a party when Lauren ends up in bed with someone else entirely... Sean Bateman (J. van der Beek) is just another reckless, wealthy kid at school who wants a piece of Lauren, but he's currently drowning in debt to a drug dealer named Rupert (C. Collins Jr.). To pay him back, Sean decides to start peddling drugs himself... Meanwhile, their peer Paul (I. Somerholder) is desperately trying to find love. In his case, that target is Sean—who couldn't care less about Paul's feelings—which eventually leads Paul to develop a connection with Lauren instead...

The cast features some big names, led by the star of Dawson's Creek, J. van der Beek (Texas Rangers, Varsity Blues). He's joined by S. Sossamon (Knight, Imaginary Heroes), K. Pardue (Unforgettable Club, Imaginary Heroes), J. Biel (Stealth, Seventh Heaven), C. Collins Jr. (Capote, Traffic), and TV standout I. Somerholder (Lose it and Smallville). You'll also spot S. Kurtz and F. Dunaway in supporting roles. As for the direction, the filmmaker uses a pretty experimental approach with split screens and a non-linear narrative, all tied together by impressive editing (Sharon Rutter) and a solid soundtrack (tomandandy).

I finally caught it last night... honestly, the movie was incredible. I definitely wasn't expecting it to hit that hard, but wow...

watched some clips of Dawson's Creek, then finally sat down and binged the whole thing yesterday... it was okay, I guess, but nothing really special. I thought I. Somerholder was definitely the best 😍

Like I mentioned before, the editing is actually pretty cool (the split screen 👍 and that whole reverse storytelling bit 😬)

When you just read about the plot, it sounds like some tiny little teen drama, but when you actually watch it... 😬 😈

A really solid film—I guess you could call it great 👍

wearygardener13 said:solid movie 👍

Let me prove it...👍

I watched it years ago, complaining about the ten bucks I wasted on a video rental.
Essentially, I can barely recall anything—maybe some blurry shots of Eric Stoltz😍, the usual insufferable Van der Beek, and that's pretty much it.

Terrible.👎

Pretty much forgettable.

"American Psycho" is way better.

ASD said:It’s pretty bad, honestly.

I feel for those of us who actually enjoy watching movies that are unapologetically terrible...😁