Cool News
JedTheHutt Reels From The Impact of RULES OF ATTRACTION!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
The Pride of Orange County is back with a sneak peek at a movie I can't wait to see, Roger Avery's RULES OF ATTRACTION. I have an unnatural love of KILLING ZOE, and I have heard much about this upcoming "culture bomb" of his. Let's see what Jed The Hutt has to say about it after last night's sneak screening:
This is going launch some careers and redefine others. Hopefully.
Roger Avary's adaptation of Bret Ellis' Rules Of Attraction is structured seemingly in opposition to the concept of a plot-driven narrative, and gleefully so. These are characters so interesting, so grotesque, and so set in a daily routine that is apart from most of an audience's that plot is rightfully demoted. Roughly, though, is a love triangle revolving around the party scene at a small east-coast liberal arts college. Lauren is technically a virgin, saving the only un-fucked orifice she has left for perfect Victor, away in Europe for the fall term. Paul is Lauren's ex. He's moved to semi-seducing closeted jocks-this yields mixed results. His newest pursuit is Sean, who is supposedly also bisexual. Sean is the campus pharmacist who believes Lauren is in love with him from the sexy love letters he is sent anonymously. Three deeply flawed people have idealized near-strangers in the hopes that loving them and being loved in return will fix all of their respective problems. Hilarity, masturbation, pornography, and about a dozen truly, truly unholy acts ensue, though in the interest of disclosure a few elements of the novel and screenplay (according to Harry's script review here) have been abbreviated or scuttled; no one wakes up with cock-in-ass. Unfortunately.
There had been hints before Fight Club that Brad Pitt was disgusted by his pretty-boy image, and that there was a dynamic and powerful actor waiting to surface. With Mr. Van Der Beek, aside from a turn in Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, no one really knows the extent of this actors' wish to distance himself from the role of Dawson Leery.
They Will.
Oh God, They Will.
Brother of the infamous Patrick, never seen nor mentioned, Sean Bateman is a thoroughly rotten, self-absorbed human being, and James brings the role to life effortlessly. This is the moment when Dawson stops being fanboy-bane and becomes the actor who all the writers in the chat rooms suddenly start writing lead roles in their scripts for. Close-ups are key to this film, key to Bateman: We see Sean Happy, Angry, Funny, Sad, Vengeful, Mournful, Defecating, Ejaculating, and Evil Sean. The deviancy of Sean unlike Patrick is not imagined but all too real; Sean isn't insane enough to commit unthinkable acts-Sean is perfectly sane and capable of committing unthinkable acts. He is both more accessible and more terrifying as a result. Jessica Biel's fuck-queen roommate Laura similarly defiles that actors' squeaky-clean WB image. Shannyn Sossamon's Lauren engages in the most mortifying sexual act ever put to film in the first reel; yet, of the three leads, she receives the most sympathy from an audience. Shannyn's performance combines warmth, caring, and black, black, black-hearted immorality; she's the most interesting new actor I know. Ian Somerhalder's Paul is a note-perfect spoiled rich kid suffering through unrequited gay love, rounding out the love triangle. Frankly, Paul deserved to be seen getting more sex; he's a hoot of a comic performer and the cries and moans of the frat boy crowd upon seeing man-love are simply musical, and beg an encore. There's even a glimmer of sorrow for Paul as he doggedly pursues Sean without compromising his asshole status; that Ian kid's got moxy.
Clifton Collins always brings a lot to a supporting role, and he doesn't fail as Rupert, the hillbilly drug dealer, Sean's Supplier. Bitterly resentful of the college crowd, Rupert's boiling-under-the-surface temper provides the film with a kind of humorous tension. Kip Pardue, previously of … Driven… almost steals the show from Van Der Beek as the legendary Victor. He owns the film's most audacious montage, and good luck to him.
Roger Avary BOLDLY directs Rules Of Attraction. Channeling Kubrick if anyone (making that Clockwork-y trailer appropriate,) The technical devices in the film are inspired. This is, undoubtedly, a singular vision. This is ten times the film Killing Zoë, a decent film in it's own right, was.
Gripes? Sure. Rupert is funny and important to establishing the sort of person Sean is in his first scene, and beyond that is kind of superfluous. DITCH THE HOSPITAL. Find more for Eric Stoltz to do or just drop it-preferably the former. My Biggest suggestion would be to not be so stingy with the voice-over narration from Paul Lauren & Sean. Narration is by default a screenwriter's last line of defense-Bob McKee and Syd Mead drill it into our heads never to use it. Funny, though, that most of the really great films feature large chunks of Voice-over. The opening interior monologues are so sharp and fun and insightful-they're sorely missed throughout the rest of the film. Don't be afraid of them. The ending of the film is going to be somewhat polarizing of audiences, but I've grown to like it as the impact (or lack thereof) has set in.
Rules Of Attraction is a puerile delight for men and women, gay and straight. Girls and Boys and Girls And Girls And Boys And Boys frantically cavort on-and-off-screen drinking, snorting, and fucking anything they can get their hands/noses/genitals on, but what for? Not content in just supplying disturbing images, the film imprints upon viewers a sense of futility stemming from the characters' inability to change anything in their lives. With any luck, Lion's Gate will embrace the NC-17 that Rules is destined for. Sooner or later the system will acknowledge a market for films for adults. Rules of Attraction has the potential to be that successful crossover. We'll See in September.
jed, Representin' OC up in this.
-
+ Expand All
-
A lot of the things I'm hearing so far sound as if Avery is trying to make everyone forget about that absolutely appalling adaptation of Less Than Zero. THANK FUCKING GOD!!!!
-
I stand by what I said in the OTHER Rules review today. This movie sucks, the book is Eliis' worst, blah blah blah. And read Dr Floyd's posting in the previous story, too. Ah, how I long for the days of Brad Pitt's pretty boy character in 12 Monkeys. Come on, dude. Dawson blows ass.
-
They've all sucked. Thank goodness Glamorama is safe for awhile. ..........I haven't really been impressed with Roger Avary. Killing Zoe was awful, Mr. Stitch was pretty bad.
-
all the links i've found on the net are dead...
-
Killing Zoe bit the big one...a caper gone wrong film with absolutely noone to identify with...which is truly what all films need...it doesn't have to be a good guy (Griffin Mill, Clarence Worley, Vincent Vega), but it does have to be someone we can have some empathy with. Eric Stolz's character in Killing Zoe was only a marginally less annoying scumbag than the rest. I see little hope for Rules of Attraction. And by the way, my fellow idiots, its often the direction and not the script that makes a character empathetic (see American Psycho), so anyone who posts crap about "the script was teriffic" needs to take a percocet and lie down.
-
Mar 01, 2002 12:18:08 AM CST
These Movies are Becoming Empty, Tired, and Pathetic Crap
by graham_minnesota
Neil LaBute has already examined a great deal of this ground (i.e. extreme immorality and personal betrayal), with much more sophistication, which yielded genuinely shocking results, rather than forcing the viewer to become a purient onlooker. I must ask though: Who are these people that Ellison and those who produced this movie derived these characters from? I am very sure, that if I ever met anyone of these fictional characters in real life, and they attempted any of the bullshit that they always seem to get away with in not only these type of movies, but in Ellis' books as well, they would end up at the bottom of a lake with cement shoes, either that or they would be found with bullet holes through head, lying face down in a strip mall parking lot.
-
Why don't these characters go try and pull this shit in... oh, I don't know... NEWARK, NJ. Or the SOUTH BRONX. Hell, they'd get their asses handed to them in most UPPER class neighborhoods. Especially in my homestate of NJ. People are so nasty here, I really wanna get out sometimes. Then I do, and, for some reason, I can't wait to come back. Anyway... CHANNELING KUBRICK? Please... I doubt Roger Avary or even Ellis have 1 billionth the intelligence that Kubrick had. A Clockwork Orange has so many philosophical layers to it that when I recommended it to my philosophy professor, she said her head hurt just trying to figure out how many allusions there were to Bentham, utilitarian theory, Kant, Nozick's minimalist state, etc. I doubt this film goes much deeper than just watching a bunch of self-absorbed yuppies get their ya-ya's out through mutilation and sexual debauchery. Some filmmakers seem to think that just putting this stuff on the screen makes them profound. I disagree.
-
this looks like its gonna be fucking sweet. avary is awesome, i was just watching Phantasm III and oh goddamn i hope someone gives them the cash to make Avary's Phantasm.
-
but every movie ever made is jam-packed with philosophical allusions, few of them intentional. Depth can be read into anything--you get out of this shit what you put into it. It's simply a matter of how worried you are about sounding like a pretentious wanker. Kubrick is unquestionably a superior filmmaker to Avary, but not because A Clockwork Orange was "deep".
-
As you can tell from my username, I love American Psycho. The book. The movie adaptation inspires a rage in me such as the world has never seen. It was one of the biggest disappointments of my life.
I have coined the term, "harroned" referring to a good book that was made into a bad movie (from the director/adapter Mary Harron).
I was not impressed with Killing Zoe. It had none of what makes Pulp Fiction so good. -
Pretentious... anytime someone points out ANYTHING lacking in films, ESPECIALLY in the academic department, they're called 'pretentious'. None of the things that I mentioned as far as philosophy have been brought up, as you seem to think, in lots of films. I'm not saying my philosophy professor possesses some omniscient intelligence, but, being that she has a PhD in the subject, and I'm assuming that you don't, I'll take what she said about it over what you have to say. I also did a little research and I wasn't just 'finding' these things in the film that weren't intended to be there. At the time the film was made, Kubrick was reading up on Kant and Bentham. As a matter of fact, most critical studies agree that the scene where Alex sits between the priest and the politician? after the 'test' of the Ludovico technique was MEANT(as in, not an accident) to explicitly show two opposing philosphical viewpoints as to how one should make decisions. Whether our intentions matter more than the outcome. Film is usually a pretty empty medium. Orson Welles said this many times and it drove the directors of the French New Wave nuts. They so wanted to believe they were on par with the great authors and painters of the past. Maybe they are? Who am I to say. I'm just saying that Welles didn't think so. Kind of a contradiction then, that he worked in a medium he thought was so shallow, right? *** Like I said... mention ANYTHING besides 'This film rocks' or 'this film blows' and everyone labels it as pretentious. I'm almost positive all films are not, as you put it, 'jam-packed' with philosophical allusions. And the fact that Clockwork Orange is deep does make Kubrick the better filmmaker. If his films saying more and delving deeper into issues than most other directors films does not make him a better director, then tell me, what the hell does? The technique? A lot of directors could mimic his technique or even have a helluva techinique of their own. They still suck. I'm sure you're the type of person who thinks that anything 'deep' in a film is there purely by accident. As though a writer or director just strings a bunch of scenes they love together and then, after it's done, they say, 'Wow, I didn't know I was saying that'. Here's a really pretentious statement that I'm sure you'll think makes it seem as though I'm 'trying to sound smart' - it's exactly your kind of thinking that makes filmmakers do things like completely ignore the second half of the book Wuthering Heights when transfering it to film. Ah... what's the use. The money's on the dresser baby, I'm done with you.
-
Mar 01, 2002 2:10:26 AM CST
I recommended "Superman III" to my Philosophy Professor...
by the feral kid
...and we immediately went into an in depth dissectanalysis of the many facets of "evil." We see this progression of thought throughout the film as the worker becomes a dangerous pawn in his boss's schemes of world domination because of the Gus Gorman's - the worker - pride in his newly discovered ability at computer programming, a reaction to his own feelings of worthlessness. The next stage of this incubated state of evil is separation of Superman because of the Kryptonite laced tobacco carried by Gorman which causes Superman to split into a Good and Bad Superman, two identities, one man. This is merely a metaphor for Clark Kent's need to express himself despite the societial bonds that relegate him into obscurity and not celebrity. Finally, we have a classic Frankensteinian device in which Gorman is faced with his "monster," a mega computer situated in the Grand Canyon; at this point, his relation with his boss and his wife, Ross and Vera Webster, is put into perspective - the folly and danger of ambition is unmasked and thus the good and evil personnas are finally realized with Vera merging both mentally and physically with the mega-computer. This act of moral "sacrifice" for personal gain merely traps her inside a metallic frame of horrorific imprisonment. Thus, the evil is identified, the sides are denoted and Superman takes Gorman and leaves as the structure explodes. But all this is callous and basically blind. Through philosophy we can truly see the real motives behind the actions. I cannot really understand these amazing revelations and would rather use the study of many well known philosophers, mainly Hannah Ardent's and her theory on "the Banality of Evil." In this we find that the Websters' could not fully understand their base emotions and the horror that their control of the world would see. In essence, they were blind to their actions because their motives were so basic. Interesting. It is also good to note that the Newman brothers during the penning of the script were following the relation of Ardent's theories to the creedo that is "Logical Positivism" which would explain the metaphysical realization of the "Webster computer beast" and it's nondestructive destruction. The Grand Canyon was unharmed, Superman "one man" again and Gorman still a man with a complex and ultimately this let's us see that nothing really matters, just as "Logical Positivism" states. Many of these theories were fleshed out more in the post-work of the Newman brothers in their next script, 1985s "Santa Clause" in which the Gorman/Webster analysis is transported to the relation of Patch (played by Dudley Moore) and B.Z. (played pitch perfect by John Lithgow in the depiction of the self inflicted pathos of greed). Professor Johannensen and I spent many a cup of Mocha Latte discussing these films, good days, good days...
-
About time. His SANDMAN draft blew inordinate amounts of ass, as did MR STITCH and KILLING ZOE.
-
Damn! I did the same thing with JEEPERS CREEPERS when I received an invite last year. Forgot all about it until this morning when I reached into my pocket and found the crumpled up peice of paper with the titles: RULES OF ATTRACTION printed on it. Fuck.
-
three cheers for post-modernism. hip-hip, hurray! hip-hip, hurray! hip-hip, hurray!
-
Isn't that just a fancy word for "fucked-up shit"? Speaking of FUS, Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho" and "Glamorama" sit right up there, for me at least, with Ol' Pappy's bedtime favourite "Naked Lunch" as shockingly excessive/ gut-bustingly satirical literary epics for the Modern Age. Popular opinion indicates Mr. Easton Ellis may or may not be a wanker, but the guy's turn of phrase, command of pop idiom, and silkily brutal skewering of Western Civilisation as he knows it often has left me in flabbergasted awe. Ellis and James Ellroy are two members of a rarefied club of authors who I would bust down a door to read. My favourite line from "Glamorama" ? - "I saw a bum today with great abs." Who the hell can top that?
-
that I was referring to the techniques of putting the story on film; it reminded me of eyes wide shut & clockwork orange. "channeled"="borrowed" or even "stolen" if you're so desperate to suck stanley's now-rotten cock as to defame EVERY OTHER DIRECTOR in his name. that's it. please get your nasty unkempt scummy scummy filthy talkbacker fists out of my ass. fucktubes.
-
I too was at the screening...the movie rocked. Beek was awesome...as was Shannon. Killingzoe was decent but this movie f**king rocks! there are some cooleffects including an amazing splitup screen sequence...and a wacky whack off scene with Beek!! actually there is a bizarre an funny gay section that had everyone laughing. i'm not sure i understood the ending,but it didn't matter.Avery's movie is a lot better than Tarntino's last one. the other thing i liked is that i really want to see this one again.
-
I'm sure that many of us can agree that the term 'wanker' sucks ass.
-
The feral kid already did all my work for me, God bless him. Incidentally, I'm presently working on a Master's degree in cinema and comparative literature, so all of your assumptions about me are clearly way off base. I'm no stranger to pretension, and I'm all for a higher level of filmic discourse (i.e. shouting "Profound!" and "Pedestrian!" instead of "Sucks!" and "Rocks!"). There is, however,
a difference between being thoughtful and being a pedantic, show-offy little twat. -
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...yeah. Thanks. For Everything, Julie Newmar.
-
Mar 01, 2002 3:36:18 PM CST
I realise you take a somewhat personal interest in the film Pat,
by aggregatescore
It didn't have everything that was in the book, but I felt it managed to capture the satirical spirit very well. Plus, Christian Bale was perfect. And anyway atleast you're childhood wasn't 'raped' (to coin a popular phrase in these parts) by Barry Levinson. Now that was UNWATCHABLE and I really did feel like crying afterwards. How could he do this?
-
Mar 02, 2002 8:35:22 PM CST
the trouble is with these films (and I'm bound to get yelled
by electric_monk
is the 1980's are over, though I hear it's the "in" thing right now. While Ellis does have a talent for words, and knows what satire is, his books cannot be translated without becoming crap. While American Psycho is funny -in its satirical way -it goes overboard in violence and turns a despicable person into a hero. And while the movie toned down the blood shed and tweaked up the humor, it still was an overrated piece of trash. The people who read -or see the movie version- of this type of distorted image claim they see the satire. I question that. I've never seen the glory of seeing people killed in many different ways that American Psycho or any of the JasonFreddy films showed to the world. Ellis, however, tapped into a group of people who watch this stuff with one hand in their crotch and clutching a kleenix in the other, spewing everytime some girl -always a girl -gets slaughtered. And they laugh their collective asses off. Where's the satire in that? The 1980's was a time for excess, and I get the point at what Ellis is trying to say, however he now believes his own press. Which makes him more dangerous and licentious than his charatcers and the crappy movies they make of his tomes. And while I don't ask for all films to have a moral center, I do ask they have a little humanity. Something that both his books and films lack. Which may be the point, I know. I guess I lack the ability to understand why these type of films are so popular with the people here in this thread. But then, I can't wrap my brain around two planes crashing into the WTC. Not that there is any comparison -just an analogy. Still, I guess I should shut up -and I'm sure some of you will agree -but Brett Easton Ellis is not a year good writer. Like Anne Rice, he has latched onto to some strange folks who like seeing the dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, side of humanity. Life is a strange ride to begin with, and while I like seeing the rich and wealthy are just as dysfunctional as the Blue Collar people, hell all I have to do is turn on the TV and see the Kennedy's. Let the bitching begin....
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts