Reactions to AICN's Screening of RULES OF ATTRACTION at The Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, Californ I.A.!

Hi Harry,

Valmont here.  Went to the Rules of Attraction screening in Hollywood last night.  Judging on the full house of AICNers there (not to mention Moriarty), I'm sure you're getting plenty of reviews on the movie.  And, based on the audience reaction, they're probably mostly positive.  

In an effort to do something a little different, I'm offering up a review targeted to people who have read Bret Easton Ellis' book that the movie is adapted from.  This will, obviously, involve some spoilers...  

Let me start with full disclosure:  I am a huge fan of Bret Easton Ellis' novels.  I have read them all repeatedly, and Rules of Attraction is possibly my favourite (it's a close call between Rules and American Psycho).  I also thoroughly enjoyed both film adaptions of Ellis' work (American Psycho and Less Than Zero for those who don't know).  

That said, I can tell anyone who shares my passion and/or admiration for the aforementioned works that odds are quite good you will love this movie.  Not like, but love.  

Roger Avary has a true reverence for his source material, which at first glance might not be so evident based on what's missing from the story (we'll get to that later).  But right from the very beginning scene (which is the same as in the novel), you realize that Avary has read and reread and studied the text to get everything right--not so much all the details (for example, Lauren is a brunette in the film, not a blond--although hair colour is not as important in Rules as it was in Less Than Zero...) but the tone of the story.  The almost-aloof voice-over of a traumatizing event mirrors the distance with which the characters in the novel recount their stories (and using dialogue straight from the text doesn't hurt either).  

Roger confirmed his love for the book at the Q&A after the film.  He said he'd been thinking how to adapt the book into a movie for the last decade or so.  I also felt that the book needed to be made into a movie, and like Roger figured it would be damn near impossible to make a movie completely true to the book.  And it is.  But Roger has done the next best thing, which is capture all the most important themes of the novel, along with the best scenes and dialogue, and made them into a work of art that both compliments the original text and stands alone as its own work.  

Die-hard purists may be troubled by what Roger chose to cut from the story (the entire thread of Lauren's pregnancy and subsequent abortion is completely absent, for example).  This is why I say that people who liked the film versions of Less Than Zero and American Psycho will like this film.  People who hated those adaptations, or couldn't get past the creative changes in the adaptations (like how nobody in Less Than Zero was blonde in the film while everyone was blonde in the book) probably will have problems with this film too.  I say: do your best to get past it, because it's completely worth it.  

To prepare you, I'll point out the most glaring differences here.  First, as already mentioned, a brunette Lauren does not get knocked up and therefore does not get an abortion.  In fact, she never even sleeps with Sean in the film (and has significantly less sex in the film--almost none).  Franklin is completely absent from the movie.  Judy is changed into Lana (Jessica Biel) and does not do all the same things she does in the book.  Sean and Lauren are not really a couple in the film at any point.  

There are quite a few smaller changes as well, and none of them matter.  I know it may be hard for some of you to believe, but the changes don't hurt the story at all.  Even Lauren's pregnancy--arguably the most significant event in the novel--is not missed here.  Trust me, the film works better without it.  

Now for the things that Roger kept in.   Paul and Sean do hook up onscreen, though it's shown as a fantasy of Paul's (I've always thought the novel left that one up for debate).  Victor's trip through Europe is shown (in a fantastic two-minute montage narrated at breakneck speed).  All the parties are shown, and labeled as "Dress to Get Screwed Party" etc.  Much of the dialogue, particularly the voice-overs, is straight from the book.  Sean says "Rock n Roll" and "Deal with it" a lot.  Sean's secret admirer is cleverly placed in the background unnoticed until her suicide scene (easily one of the best and most intense scenes of the movie).   

The direction here is great, as Roger uses clever techniques like split-screen and reversing the footage to give the movie a similar feel to the book--to show that things are happening simultaneously.  The effect is clever, witty, and makes it easy for the audience to follow the course of events that even in the book can get a little confusing.  

The acting is superb in this movie by everyone.  Van Der Beek will get the most ink, since he plays Sean to be the true asshole that he is (the anti-Dawson, if you will).  At one point, when Sean and Mitchell are in the car and Mitchell calls him crazy, Sean looks at him and says "Define crazy."  The look in Van Der Beek's eyes here, as well as his performance through the rest of the film, show his brilliance.  It was at this moment that I truly believed I was watching the little brother of Patrick Bateman (speaking of Patrick, the scene with him holding a severed head has been cut from the film for time reasons--hopefully Roger will include it on the dvd).   

Shannyn Sossamon was a great Lauren.  Going in, I couldn't picture her playing Lauren.  That lasted for about three minutes.  She totally won me over.  I didn't like A Knight's Tale or 40 Days and 40 Nights, and couldn't see what the big deal was about this girl.  Now I know.  

Jessica Biel is beautiful and funny as Lana (Judy).  Ian Somerhalder makes a great Paul--funny and gorgeous and aloof yet insecure.  Eric Stoltz and Fred Savage have hilarious cameos.  But the true standouts for me were Kip Pardue as Victor, Clifton Collins Jr. as Rupert, and Russel Sams as Richard  (or "Dick").  These three steal every scene they are in (which isn't many).  In particular, the Rupert and Dick scenes, mildly amusing in the novel, become hilarious on the screen--due in large part to the performances of the actors.  Rupert was portrayed as a wannabe toughie drug dealer in the book, but in the movie Collins has made him almost a caricature.  He evoked laughs within seconds.  And Sams makes the most of his fifteen minutes as Dick by scoring the biggest laughs from the audience with almost every line he spoke.  And his striptease to George Michael's "Faith" (an adlibbed scene according to the Q&A) is one of the film's best highlights.   

Kip Pardue makes a fantastic Victor, good-looking but not so much that you don't believe he's real.  And the whole Europe scene actually drew applause from the audience.  According to the Q&A, this scene was shot over two weeks with Roger just following Pardue around and filming him partying.  This makes me like the scene (and Pardue) that much more, and I can't wait to see him play Victor in Roger's adaptation of Glamorama.  

So, to wrap up this ridiculously long review, I'll say that this movie, while sacraficing quite a bit of the details and story, managed to capture the best elements of the novel--the tone between funny and sad, the cleverly-simultaneous storytelling, the best scenes and lines, and the satirical bite at rich college kid society that Ellis conveyed in his book.  And, for a nice little touch, Roger even made a nod to the film version of Less Than Zero when Jessica Biel's character, commenting on her bloody nose while doing cocaine, says "Rusty pipes."  

I said it before and it bears repeating: if you liked the earlier adaptations, you should love this one.

And now for Enigma Boy....