Review of The Rules of Attraction (2002) by Hannibal O — 27 Apr 2008

Directed by Roger Avary (co-writer of Pulp Fiction) and adapted from Bret Easton Ellisâ?? novel, The Rules of Attraction is a frustrating film to watch because you know what its trying to be and where it wants to take you, but it doesnâ??t succeed at it.

In the end, Avary delivers a mediocre film that contains some great moments. Avary had been trying to adapt the novel since it came out in 1987 so this was obviously a labor of love for him. His screenplay for this is written in a non-linear fashion, which means youâ??ll either love it for breaking the conventional mold of screenwriting or youâ??ll find it to be a confusing and pretentious exercise.

The Rules of Attraction reminded me a lot of Trainspotting. Both of them tell their stories in a formless, stream of consciousness fashion. However, unlike Trainspotting, Rules of Attraction distracts you from its theme with its use of cinematic devices â?? it was obvious Avary was using Final Cut Pro to make this film because he seemed to have used every bell and whistle the program offers.

The other problem I had with the film was its casting. The film is cast with actors who are all playing against type. It works for some and it doesnâ??t for others. For example, James Van Der Beek is cast as Sean Bateman.

Although I have never seen Dawsonâ??s Creek, Iâ??m pretty attuned to popular culture and I, like most people, have a preconceived image of the actor as a wholesome Boy Scout. So when I watched this film, I was never convinced that I was watching Sean Bateman.

Instead, I was watching James Van Der Beek attempting to play Sean Bateman. One actor who did impress me and I wished we saw much more of his character was Kip Pardueâ??s character, Victor. He was hilarious, interesting, and totally convincing to watch.

Anyway, overall the film ended up being mediocre for me, which is unfortunate because it had a lot of potential to be a great film.