Genres

Visitors Review

lbk442 2012-05-25 15:06:50

A Horrible Waste of Time and Film

This movie was exactly that. A horrible waste of time and film. Itdidn'thave a plot, it didn't have a point, and I wish I hadn't paid $3.75 torentit. It definetly goes on my top 5 Worst Movie list. In fact, it justmightget the #1 spot.I feel sorry for anybody that happened to go to a college like that. Ifeeleven sorrier for the person who's mind thought up this garbage. Iwouldn'tbe surprised if they were the ones in the blood-filled bathtub in about 5years.

kibler@adelphia.net 2012-05-25 00:21:58

'Rules of Attraction' makes more of an endurance test for a whole film of unsympathetic characters than a character study

Rules of Attraction, The (2002) James Van Der Beek, Shannyn Sossamon, IanSomerhalder, Jessica Biel, Kip Pardue, Kate Bosworth, Clifton Collins Jr.,Thomas Ian Nicholas, Fred Savage, Eric Stoltz, Faye Dunaway, Swoosie Kurtz,Russell Sams, Joel Michaely, D: Roger Avary. Excruciating endurance testfrom a Bret Easton Ellis novel takes a look at a liberal arts college campusin New England with greedy and narcissistic collegians who all partake indrug abuse, alcoholism, and four play. It's hard to decide which characteris the most repellent and empty since we don't like or care in the leastabout them. The film's mean-spirited, off-putting approach holds everythingdown, except the esteemed direction-with camera tricks including slow andfast motion, and backward motion. Running Time: 110 minutes and rated Rstrong sexual content, drug use, language, and violent images. * ½

charhate 2012-05-14 22:32:51

Brent Easton Ellis...

Brent Easton Ellis is a true master of the black satire...Although the movie is not compareable to the book, just like AmericanPsycho. The reason for this is odvious to any one who has taken the timetoread them...

Manji 2012-05-14 12:46:16

I liked it...I liked it a lot. Rock n Roll!

THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is by far one of the most ambitious films thatI'veever seen. I mean, just the fact that it's based on a Bret Easton Ellisnovel already makes it ballsy. James Van Der Beek has officially killedhisDawson persona. I can't watch those WB commercials anymore withoutthinking`yo, that's the sicky younger bro of Patrick Bateman.' Ian SomerhalderandShannyn Sossamon are so disgustingly talented that they steal every scenethat they do without the Beek. And when the three are together in thesamearea.damn! It's like magic on acid and I loved it all. I figured thatthisflick would be focused completely on `Dawson as a bad guy' but I waspleasantly surprised by the weight which both Somerhalder and Sossamonbrought to their roles. Those three young actors came to play ball andtheyhit a huge homerun.But, as is expected, many people just hate this film.The main reason why the haters are hating? Lack of likeable characters.Thatmust really suck, to go to the movies and not find a character that isjustlike you. See, I go to the movies to watch other people get intointerestingsituations. I'm not looking for anybody to identify with because guesswhat?Nobody in movies are real people, they are simply actors portrayingcharacters.Now, I know you typically think of characters as being those nutty peopleinthe back of your classroom who make everyone crack up. Well, in moviescharacters are not real people, they are the creation of other humanbeings.Depending on the right actor, each character is given life that stepsrightout of the pages of the text. But that doesn't mean that you're supposedtoinstantly want to love them. Disconnect yourself from that greedy need toidentify with someone and just appreciate who you are as a person. Youdidn't find anyone you could identify with in this movie? Then why areyouupset? Do you wish that you were that pathetic or lost in life like thethree main characters? Interesting.Furthermore, many people bash this movie because it lacks a plot. That'sabout the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. Follow me now.does yourlifehave a plot? I know mine doesn't. I live in the real world and just trytomake the best of it. THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is about life and whathappenswhen there is no arc to follow. The characters in the film have no plansforthe immediate future because they really don't see anything outside oftheday-to-day scope. This is a snippet out of their aimless lives and it isdone that way purposely to demonstrate a simple fact. LIFE IS THE RESULTOFTHOSE MOMENTS THAT CHANGE YOU FOREVER. The events of the film have to berecognized as those things that are going to forever dictate how thesecharacters live the rest of their lives. It's great that you as a viewerwould hate this movie because nobody looks forward to the future but youhave to be like Mr. Glass in UNBREAKABLE to understand what's going on inthis movie. If there's someone like you who has everything already niceandplanned out then logic dictates that there is someone on the opposite endofthe spectrum. They are lives with no purpose.So, no lesson has been learned by RULES OF ATTRACTION. People just don'tseem to get it because it doesn't conform to the typical flick aboutcollege-aged kids. Since Roger Avary won't do it then I'm just gonna comeright out and apologize for the lack of Jason Biggs screwing pies,Stiflerdrinking semen, and Nadia being broadcast over the internet for yourvoyeuristic pleasure. If you were led to believe that this movie wasgoingto be a cute gross out comedy, then maybe you should just stick to Gene'spicks at your local vid store. I'm sure he's got plenty of Weekend AtBernie's sequels to make up for the Big Bad Avary's non-conformistfilms.For the rest of you daring people, please check out RULES OF ATTRACTIONassoon as you can for something different. I've said too much already.Please,don't go into the movie with my perspective.just see it to gain your own.It's catharsis, this movie should make you appreciate yourlife.

ihateeverything 2012-05-13 03:47:39

I declare shenanigans on this movie!

Wow! What an opening sequence! Following one character to the next to thenext to the next is a unique idea (I think it's been done about 1000timesalready), but with the constant rewinding and playback it is anything butaverage. That sequence was better than I could have imagined.I had low expectations while watching this mostly because the WB is a 5thrate television station and there are 2 actors from shows on the channeloneof which looks like an Oompa Loompa (it's Dawson).The reason that I am declaring shenanigans on this movie is because ofthehuge error in time. From what I gather, this is set in current time. But,ifwe are to believe that Sean Bateman is related to Patrick Bateman itseems alittle hard to swallow.I heard the soundtrack and it is heavy on the 80's (and some 70's) tunes,but The Rapture? Milla Jovovich? The Rapture is an 00's band and MillaJovovich was (is?) a 90's singer. This is why I assume it is set incurrenttime.Bret Easton Ellis' book of the same title was written in the 80's. Nowwhywas his novel and the movie "American Psycho" in the 80's and then hisnovel"Rules of Attraction" was set in the 80's and his movie "Rules ofAttraction" set in the 00's. I think it would have been a drasticallybettermovie had he chose to set it in the 80's.If we are to assume that Patrick was 26 years old in "American Psycho"andSean was in his late teen's/early 20's in "Rules of Attraction, thenthereis a 25-30 year age difference between these two brothers where Patricknowis anywhere from 40-49 years old! I did the math. Now, I know that thisisentirely possible, it's hardly plausible.I think it would have been much more interesting if this was setconcurrently so the viewer could juxtapose the psyche of Patrick versusSean. That smells like a college term paper topic! But not one that willbewritten at "Camden College" if you know what I mean.

movieboy-12 2012-05-12 18:07:48

Very good adaption; enjoyable

So THE RULES OF ATTRACTION by Bret Easton Ellis has always been one of myfavorite books and I was so excited when I discovered in Mar. 2002 that afilm adaption was made. So I saw this last night and I must say I wasn'tdisappointed because compared to other adaptions it was well done. Firstoff, Roger Avary's direction was fantastic and much better than hisdirection for KILLING ZOE. I do agree with other IMDB users who say the filmwas pretentious. It was. Compared to the book the relationships in the filmare pathetic. Yet, the acting was fantastic. Shannyn Sossamon totallysurprised me with her acting as Lauren. I must admit every time I've readthe book I pictured Lauren as the blonde ditz. But Sossamon's acting changedmy view and she should be proud of that. Van Der Beek wasn't bad but I'msure they could've found someone better to play Sean. The other surprisingacting came from Kip Pardue who played Victor. Wow!

Dr. Movie 2012-05-09 09:39:19

Outstanding

This is an outstanding movie. I am a fan of Bret Easton Ellis. I think Avary's adaptation of Ellis' opera of venality and self-gratification on the part of the students of Camden College is fabulous.This movie is like an a dark opera, and has a great soundtrack to boot. The movie has so many great moments in it I wont even get started. I thought the direction was inventive. I thought James Van Der Beek did an amazing job as he smirked, sneered, smoke and drank through this movie. I thought the "european vacation" montage mid-way through the movie was groundbreaking. This movie makes you feel a little bit spent after you see it, its such an experience. In short, SCREW THE CRITICS. They apparently don't know a good movie when they see it. "In the Bedroom" was total crap, goes to show you that movie 'experts' can often be morons about movies. Like I say, screw em.

misguidednrg 2012-05-08 21:40:13

=/

I would in no way say this was an excellent movie.However, i was surprised to see the reactions of people indicating that itwas one of the worst movies ever.Most of these reasons for people hating it is that they comment it was toounrealistic or the lives were way too depressing - it was as if the moviewas made to show how sorry humans are.I think to an extent, a lot of people hate it because it does depict someaspects of reality, even though it may not be common reality. Yet withsatire, i believe the story has to be taken to a certain extremity andmaybe'RUles of Attraction' just overdid it.For the people who hated it so much for its unrealistic aspects, pleasereconsider how unrealistic it actually is. It is very morbid, I'd agree.Andalmost nobody i know lives like this...but that's because I'm an American.In such places like third world countries, this IS how bad their livesare,maybe even an underestimate.In Asia, kids are beaten by their teachers frequently and a lot of timesforno reason. There is no question that many teachers take advantage of theirstudents.And students raping other students is certainly not unheard of (esp. whilethe victim is passed out drunk). Suicide is a common atrocity among teensand it is very f***ed up sometimes how we treat people, especially when itcomes to relationships.I would just like to bring to attention that I thought it wasn't stretchedor over profane. Simply, the obscenities took place all tied in together.And that ALL of it was like this, made it distateful toaudiences.In recognition, it did have some nice camerawork.5.5/10

rambler-9 2012-05-03 22:21:56

Do believe the critics - dreadful flick

The narration at the very beginning of the film hits it right on thehead. It's boring.An unlikable plot about a group of unlikable characters doing unlikablethings, to themselves and each other. A (classic? Hardly) lovequadrangle forms the central plot, with no-one wanting to be withanyone else that actually likes him or her. To compensate, thecharacters get high, get drunk, and mope. Extensively.While I'm giving a score of 3 simply because so many of the charactersare well-acted and look good with no clothes on, other than those twothings, there's really nothing to recommend this film. I've seen peoplecomment that the film is wonderfully realistic. If this film matchesyour reality, I am sorry. You should turn your life in and get arefund, and buy a new one from a better trim line. Really? EVERY SINGLEPERSON on Earth does not get drunk, do drugs, and make everyone elsethey know miserable.Finally, after an unsatisfying ride through the film awaiting somethinginteresting to break out, we have an unsatisfying ending. I guess thepoint of the movie is that life is unsatisfying. Personally, I go tomovies to get something different, not to be bored or depressed. I canget that from real life, with people that are much happier and nicer tobe around! Overall - I'll take movies that entertain me, thanks. Rulesof Attraction? Not so much; more like "Rules to an Unhappy Life withterrible people" So sad.

SMacy 2012-05-03 09:43:37

Nietzchean Nightmare

A close friend may want to whisper to Roger Avary that he, being a regularSuperman, doesn't have anything to prove. This deliberately messy andfrantic essay on, well, nothing, is unpleasant and unfortunatelyunforgettable. Skip it or watch it skip you.

Grann-Bach 2012-04-25 17:35:04

Sometimes I can't believe the crap that spills out of my mouth

Based on the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the same title(that I have notread and cannot compare it to, albeit I understand that it goes far inportraying the same disillusioned, borderline psychopathic types), thischronicles the passing of Spring to Winter in the lives of three Camdencollege students; drug dealer Sean(younger brother of Patrick Bateman,from American Psycho; played by Van Der Beek, who I didn't expect to dowell, but he surprised me), virgin Lauren(Sossamon) and bisexualPaul(Somerhalder), who barely knew each other, and are suddenly in alove triangle with each other(there's a lot of unrequited love in this,and they don't notice that only they are into the relationship, and/orthey don't take care of it). They and their peers(in fact, everyone inthis) have trouble connecting(or communicating... they talk withoutsaying anything) with anyone else(one point has a snowflake melt onsomeone's temple, in place of them shedding a tear), and do plenty ofdrugs and drinking to get by. With this being a very provocativepicture, it places some of the very most disgusting material right atthe beginning. If you don't last until the opening credits sequence,this is not for you. And don't feel bad, it's a very explicit piece.This very much follows the logic that you don't need appealingcharacters, that you can center the focus on interesting, yet horrible,human beings. I gotta say, it works. There is no one likable in this,yet it didn't bore me. They are shallow, spoilt(and since you meet afew of the parents, you understand why), arrogant and care for littleother than satisfying their own urges(which they project onto theirpreferred partner). This needing to differentiate between the threeperspectives and the fairly different(all messed up, yes... not in thesame exact way, however) people led to them using nicely done visualthings(the storytelling is superb), such as splitscreen and "rewindingthe film", in order to set the stage(in time and location) for whathappened to one of the others, simultaneously with what we've justseen. It also starts at the conclusion, after which, it is inchronological order(noting aforementioned skips backwards). This is oneof the few honest movies about going to a university(one might call ita satire on that, and a savage beating of the "teenage romp"), all theunhappy couples, desires running rampant, how little the students careabout class(in fact, we never see them in that setting, though we seethem at plenty of parties) etc. It's raw. The acting is great, foreveryone involved. Writing and development are very well-done, youreally get a sense of this environment and the men and women there.This is the only film directed by Avary I've seen, and one of the onlyones he's done. You can understand why he and Tarantino get along; theyshare an appreciation of the despicable. This is marvelously paced, itnever stands still without going by too fast. There is a lot of fairlygraphic sexual content, full male and female nudity, strong languageand disturbing, violent, bloody content(including suicide attempts) inthis. The DVD comes with informational extras. They are the sixcommentaries: #1(Sharon Seymour, Ron Jeremy, Ian Somerhalder & RussellSams), #2(Shannyn Sossamon, Theresa Wayman, Kip Pardue & CliftonCollins Jr.), 3# Jeremiah Samuels, Andy Milburn, Thomas Ian Nichols &Joel Michaely), 4#(Robert Brinkmann & Harry Ralston), #5(CarrotTop)(it's... his typical shtick, maybe? Immature, yet adult in tone,comedy, some of it genuinely funny, and he may very well be recordingit as he watches this for the first time; his doesn't tell you muchabout the production, if it is amusing) & #6(Sharon Rutter & EricSzmanda), a 26 and a half minute anatomy of a scene featurette, 13minutes of "soundbites"(interviews) and the original script in .pdfformat(no, I'm not reading it all, besides, I know perfectly well thatI don't have the chops to critique it). It also comes with a theatricaltrailer for this, The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, Hollywood Endingand Jet Lag, a teaser and a TV spot. I recommend this to anyone whowants a credible depiction of this sort of situation. 7/10

LaplacesDemon 2012-04-25 08:06:42

...

I am a huge Ellis-Fan since I first read the novel, and I really havenot seen a proper film-adaption of a book that I liked before, so I wasvery sceptical about this movie as well. But after theforwards-backwards time-flow at the beginning and the first fewdialogues, I quickly changed my mind. The beginning of the movie is asclose to the novel as it could be.I agree that one who hasn't read any of Ellis' novels might find thecharacters one-dimensional and the plot (i.e. what happens to thecharacters and what they do) pointless... but... that was exactlyEllis' intention. All his novels are about the emptiness that peoplefind in themselves when they spend their lifes and money on absolutelycursorily relationships, drugs, partys, and fake friends. They wastethe happiest time in their lifes by living their lifes to the full.There's absolutely nothing inside them what would make a personinteresting to me. To me, all his other characters seemed more frightening than PatBateman, the serial killer in "American Psycho", because they've gotall they could ever want but still have nothing to loose. It's theirsheer negation of any form of human or social or emotional values thatmakes them scary to me. How hard they may try and how much they reallylove each other in this hetero/bi/homo-clique, their endeavours willnever succeed.And I have never before seen a film based on a novel that catched theexact meaning of a book so well. It's almost like the pictures I got inmy head during reading.So far I agree with Frank who posted before me, I only disagree that"The Rules of Attraction" was Ellis' first novel... His first novel was"Below Zero" which has also been adapted to film. Watch this if youwanna see how a scriptwriter can absolutely fail the original intentionand meaning of a book.10 out of 10 stars for Roger Avary, 9 out of 10 for the actors and thedirector.

2012-04-25 04:28:34

The Rules Of How To Make Mind-Numbing Cinema

Directed & Scripted by Roger Avary from the Bret Easton Ellis novel, RULES OF ATTRACTION is 100% UNCUT in NZ! Amazing!The "story" revolves around a pack of self-absorbed, doped-up college kids- among them Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek in a bad guy role)cousin of American Psycho Patrick; Paul the token gay guy; Peter a country bumpkin who is attending college on financial aid... and who also needs to pay off a whacked out drug dealer who possesses a vocab as extensive as Mickey Rourke; & other characters I won't bother going into because the movie is so self-absorbed and numbing. Just like the story's protaganists.THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is basically about a group of college kids & the seemy underside of the American Dream of a privileged education & what lies below the surface. The film is narrated in a dull monotone by Van Der Beek's character; which of course manages to capture the tone of Ellis's book quite well- if you've read the book & LESS THAN ZERO, you'll know what I mean.The first 15 minutes are the most annoying; which is meant to set up the story before the opening creds- including a scene where Van Der Beek is engaging in a violent sex act. Meant to be shocking, but really when you watch it you just think "Hey, check it out! Dawson's doing the rumba!"After that the film turns into a long, protracted two and a half hours of drugs, booze, sex, rape, suicide, vomit & numerous other bodily fluids; a vain attempt by Avary to be provocative & scandalous; but all the movie does is wallow in its own excess & amounts to nothing more than a self indulgent piece of glitzy trash. This especially applies to the overlong, monotonous montage sequence in the last half hour; where my next door neighbour makes her motion picture debut as "the Kiwi girl"- an entire half second of screen time. (Chances are she'll jump the fence and beat me up if she reads this!!)Overall, RULES OF ATTRACTION is a movie in which its ambition far outweighs its achievements (What's with the reverse play sequence in the movie? Is it just Avary saying "Look at me! I can do camera tricks!"?). One of the characters also makes a reference to Quentin Tarantino. Subtle. Is Avary annoyed because BOOGIE BOY & MR. STITCH were far from being great movies? Is RULES OF ATTRACTION a vain attempt to be taken seriously by Hollywood for another 15 minutes? If so he's failed in that respect. The cast also includes Kate Bosworth, Swoosie Kurtz & Faye Dunaway. Ron Jeremy has a cameo as a pianist. Why did they bother? And why should you? Read the book instead, its equally pretentious but will give you less of a headache.

Big_Captain_Splatter 2012-04-24 18:57:57

The REAL Sequel To American Psycho

Forget the nonesence which is American Psycho 2. Rules Of Attraction isthe real sequel to American Psycho. Sure, it might not be a horrormovie, but I would much rather watch this then American Psycho 2 anyday of the week.Unless I am mistaken, I believe that this film is suppose to take placebefore American Psycho. Patrick Bateman's younger brother, SeanBateman, is a college student. Much like his brother, he is very crazy,and has sex on the brain all the time. The film basically representscollege life for the bad group. Parties, always getting messed up ondrugs, and having sex 24/7.A great film. A must see.

xx_deleted_xx 2012-04-19 23:59:16

Marvelous, misunderstood, under-rated.

*caution: may contain spoilers*The Rules of Attraction was one of my top 10 favorite films this year, yetit was overlooked during its theatre run and trashed by most critics andfans. I think alot of people just didn't get it. They were too put offbythe subject matter. The mundane attitude about sex was enough for theMPAAto initally brand this with their NC-17 rating. Unfortunately, theydidn'trealize that people like the characters in the film really DO exist inreallife. Yes, they are not that likeable... but they are there, and in away,they are the product of the Baby Boomer generation. The scary thing is...Irecently graduated high school, and I can see many of my classmates goingonto be just like the characters in "Rules of Attraction". The lives of thepeople in ROA revolve around partying, drugs, sex and basically everythingbut schoolwork and studying. Even the teachers join in on some of theparties. Each of the parties in the film has a name... the edge of theworld party, end of the world party, dressed to get screwed party. Theending leaves things open (which I think is good) and we get the feelingthat all of these characters will eventually get to a point where theyrealize that they've done diddily squat with the last 4-5 years of theirlives. The film has some nifty camera tricks, including backwards motiontoshowcase multiple points of view in a certain scene, and split-screencinematography that works quite well. Roger Avary (the director andscreenwriter) could've easily watered this material down for a mainstreamaudience, but he decided to stay close to the book, and he succeeded. AsImentioned earlier, many will be put off by the subject matter in thisfilm.There is lots of blunt sexual dialogue and situations, as well as druguse... and of course, the infamous suicide scene which involves a girlslitting her wrists in the bath tub. The suicide scene isn't as graphicasyou've heard, but it's quite disturbing. It's one of the most powerfulscenes i've seen in awhile. "Rules of Attraction" is a film that willevoke a love-hate reaction. Many will love it, many will violently hateit.. but nobody will call it "average". Either way, it will have aneffecton you, be it positive or negative. The film is a very real and blunt lookat the lives of what is supposed to be "america's future". All of the sexand drugs is about to get to them eventually.

Sophie Hart 2012-04-19 09:34:28

Laurens theme song

There is a song that is quite ethereal and is played once Lauren isjilted by Sean i believe. does anyone know who that is by as it doesn'tseem to be on the soundtrack or any info i can google. It has no lyricsas such but it does have a female vocal she sings but doesn't say anyparticular words just an 'ooo' sound, its kind of ghostly sounding butvery beautiful.It may be that it is by tomandandy but i cant find anyinfo to suggest so. if anyone knows please email spleen107@hotmail.com,thanks.In addition, i love this film and James van derbeek is marvellous. iused to loathe him in Dawson's creek but once i saw this i found himinstantly watchable and could stomach his face in Dawson's creek. Iwish the Paul character was on the screen more, he is gorgeous. Thesection with victor travelling Europe is a masterpiece and its a pitythis film could suffer from being overlooked because of its teen stylecast. it is very clever and well made.

Ezzo Ameray 2012-04-19 18:06:56

"Friends" Director's Cut on Viagra

Roger Avary's The Rules of Attraction archives itself among the 1990's and2000's teen college comedies but demands that that's not all toit.It's a comedy about sex, drugs and lost love but mixed up with the kind ofhumor we saw in Road Trip and Pulp Fiction. When mixed, this is a totalparty-package of a movie destined to give you a punch in the face look atamerican college culture added with extreme storytelling skills of RogerAvary. It's darn good fun to watch Van der Beek in a role such asthis!

2012-04-19 05:23:18

Perfect condition

This review is from: The Rules of Attraction (DVD) Love this movie! Got it in a few short days in perfect condition.. packaged correctly.. not one scratch or ding in the cd itself.. movie didn't skip once1

nnelson1 2012-04-15 08:38:09

This Movie BLEW

This movie was the worst movie I've ever rented. I couldn't even manage toforcemyself to watch the whole thing. The concept is interesting, but I don'teveragain want to see so many serious subjects touched upon so disgustingly.Anyone that likes this movie is seriously messed up. Rape, gay sex, drugs,allincluded in a short period of time to make Rules of Attraction the mostunrealisticdisgusting movie ever.

Adam Benjamin 2012-04-14 14:37:23

The Rules of Attraction

I watched this movie having heard numerous things about it, most of them bad. I turned the movie off with a sense of what I can describe only as satisfaction at a movie better than was expected. Overall, The Rules of Attraction was not a good movie, but it had enough redeeming qualities to avoid being a bad movie, too. As far as the story goes, I'm not sure The Rules of Attraction had enough of one to warrant making a movie that is supposed to have a plot. Luckily, I went into the movie not expecting a plot, so I wasn't disappointed. The story was useless, and not the movie's strong point. If someone asked me what it was about, I don't know what I would tell them. It would probably go something like this: It's about Sean Bateman, a drug dealer who likes Lauren, who once dated Paul, who likes Sean, who sleeps with Lara, who is roomates with Lauren, who grows to like Sean but at the beginning of the movie (or should I say, at the 4th scene) is saving herself for Victor, who is described as "slightly gay" (and who I believe I read had dated Paul, although I don't remember explicitly hearing it in the movie), who spends most of the movie on a trip to Europe, which is recapped in one mind-blowing scene. Oh yeah, and all of the characters do drugs and get totally wasted. The acting was great. James van der Beek was good as Sean Bateman. Shannyn Sossamon as Lauren is a breath of fresh air to teen movie college girl stereotypes and captivates the screen seemingly effortlessly. I read in a review that The Rules of Attraction was "...a skillfully made movie about reprehensible people." I don't agree. Lauren is not reprehensible; she is a virgin, does not dress promiscuously, and is devoted to people she cares about. I don't understand how Ian Somerhalder gets fifth billing, as he is the third main character, Paul. Paul is also a breath of fresh air against gay college guy stereotypes. He is not innocent, but I did not find him reprehensible either. He's intelligent, funny, and "sexually frustrated." I was convinced by Kip Pardue as Victor and Jessica Biel as Lara, too, although both of those parts were fairly small in the scale of things and lacked development. Performances by Swoosie Kurtz, Faye Dunaway, and Richard Sams make one of the most insignificant scenes (although, are any of the scenes significant, since there is no plot?) one of the most memorable. I suppose that I was able to overcome the lack of plot (beyond teens loving and lusting each other, and then doing drugs) because the movie is called The Rules of Attraction, and the only clear rule is that Victor is the only one of the leads who does not want Sean Bateman; beyond that, there don't appear to be any rules of attraction, but I'll keep looking. Similarly, it was alright for the movie to have no plot, because life doesn't really have a plot, and this film is a mimic of life, albeit a satirical, very illusioned mimic. The visual styles of the movie are what attracted me to the movie in the first place, despite the bad reviews, and I must say they went above and beyond my expectations. The opening of the movie, for instance, tells a story from Lauren's perspective, then climaxes and literally rewinds to a point in that story when a story can be told by Paul, then climaxes and rewinds again for a story told by Sean. If this technique had been used more, I would have called it a gimmick, but it is rarely used outside of that sequence, which takes place chronologically at the end of the film. Therefore, after Sean's story, through the credits, we watch an extended rewind taking us from winter back into the summer, where the story "begins" in the fifth scene. Confused yet? Another scene uses a split screen to show the morning rituals of Lauren and Sean one Saturday, until they meet, and the cameras "fold out" from facing Lauren and Sean until the split screen finally becomes one screen and Lauren and Sean are facing each other. If you even understood that description, I cannot do justice to how it actually works. If not, watch the movie. Another scene recaps Victor's entire trip to Europe, which I assume took weeks or months, in two or three minutes, narrated by Victor, who never even seems to pause for breath. It's stunning and captivating. Overall, the movie's good qualities outweighed the bad ones, in my opinion. The Rules of Attraction is the type of movie that most movie viewers probably, and understandably, would not enjoy, but I enjoyed it immensely. I would not recommend it to viewers who like chronology, although I found it simple to follow, or plot, although I didn't deem it necessary. I'm not sure The Rules of Attraction would have worked with a plot, anyway, so it's probably best that it didn't have one.