Laws of Attraction (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

Starring Julianne Moore

and Pierce Brosnan:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newlin...of_attraction/

It hits theaters on March 26, 2004.

 

[Andrew Kain]

New York Observer

"..And so it is with some relief when a movie comes along like Laws of Attraction, a slick, lushly appointed romantic comedy which will not appeal to tattooed freaks, violence-craving kids, prison inmates or critics desperately trying to prove how young and hip they are, but which does provide an element of the one word that has disappeared from the world of movies. Remember the word “entertainment”? ....in essence, Laws of Attraction is about only two things: (1) how pretty Julianne Moore is, and (2) how pretty Pierce Brosnan is. O.K., it’s not Billy Wilder. But compared to all of the films I’ve suffered through lately about killing and war and dope fiends and pedophiles and suicide, I’ll take pretty. Pretty is good.

The eternally debonair Brosnan, who is more underrated than he should be, mixes some of his celebrated sardonic James Bond wit with the sensitivity he showed in the marvelous film Evelyn. The delectable Ms. Moore is clearly having a rest from her usual tense and demanding assignments. Famous for roles that are usually one step away from depression, danger and death, they both look like they are having a swell time playing a sexy, relaxed, contemporary and self-confident rivalry in the Tracy and Hepburn mold..."

 

[Michael Reuben]

Andrew, that's the second rave review you've posted in full (or nearly so). Have you seen the film yourself? We generally prefer to have members write their own reviews.

In any case, you've posted two raves (the first was deleted because it was posted in the HT Software area). Most people here know enough to check RottenTomatoes.com where this film has only a 23% positive rating. Some choice quotations, in the interest of balance:

"Operates on such outdated, unimaginative conventions of movie chemistry that Moore and Brosnan end up appearing older and stodgier than necessary."
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

M.

 

[Andrew Kain]

I don't think RT is very authoritative or entirely unbiased, there are alot of positive reviews that had been deliberately ignored by RT. For example, the Associated Press review or the Screen Daily review are major media enough to be qualified as important reviews, right?

Casting makes 'Laws' attractive
Associated Press

..The casting is part of the movie's charm: Neither actor is exactly well-known for romantic comedy work (though playing James Bond for the past decade sorta counts, since Brosnan is called upon to be romantic and comedic at varying times).

Moore, meanwhile, has built a respected career on tormented characters, from "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" to "Far From Heaven" and "The Hours." Her few previous forays into this genre have resulted in more misses ("Nine Months") than hits ("An Ideal Husband").

So it's a joy to watch the novelty of these two mature, sublime actors playing off each other, even if it's in a formulaic context...


Screendaily

Jean Oppenheimer in Los Angeles 29 April 2004

Dir: Peter Howitt. US. 2004. 90mins.

..the film itself proves an unexpectedly pleasant diversion, thanks to sparkling dialogue and winning performances from Pierce Brosnan, Frances Fisher and Michael Sheen..

 

[Andrew Kain]

Believe you have to form your own opinion because no one knows my taste or can judge if I'll enjoy or hate a movie

The public is the only critic whose opinion is worth anything at all.
~ Mark Twain ~

Don't mind criticism. If it is untrue, disregard it; if unfair, keep from irritation; if it is ignorant, smile; if it is justified it is not criticism, learn from it.

 

[Andrew Kain]

Capable Romantic Comedy, Not High Art

Pros
charming and well-acted leads, funny, and romantic

Cons
obstrusive plot devices, not exactly original, and rough pacing

The Bottom Line
"Laws of Attraction" is a decent romantic comedy vehicle for date night. And as such, do not expect groundbreaking work or deep thoughts.

Full Review
Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie''s plot.
PLOT SUMMARY

Audrey Woods (played by Julianne Moore) is a successful divorce attorney in New York. Her career makes her content, but not happy, at least not according to her mother. It seems that being a busy lawyer leaves Audrey with no romantic interests. In comes Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan), a charming rival divorce lawyer. The chemistry is undeniable and they sleep together after an evening of binge drinking. The next morning, Rafferty beats Woods in a case by using a dirty trick. A rivalry develops between the two of them despite the romantic interest from both sides.

When a famous designer, Serena (Parker Posey), wants to divorce her famous rock star husband, Thorne Jamison (Michael Sheen), Rafferty and Woods once again find themselves as opposing counsel. In the course of the case, they’re sent off to Ireland to settle a piece of property. After another night of heavy drinking, the thing in the movie tagline happens. For the rest of the movie, this handsome couple faces obstacles that may prevent them from discovering their true feelings for each other. The ending is no surprise, though. After all, this is a romantic comedy.

THE GOOD

Since this is a romantic comedy, I judge it by three main criteria: 1) chemistry between the leads, 2) be funny and 3) be romantic.

1. Julianne Moore has always looked very endearing and Pierce Brosnan can’t be ugly even if he tried. And both being seasoned and charming actors, there are moments when they look like they could be a couple in real life. This is important to me because it’s terrible watching a supposed romance when the people don’t look like they’re attracted to each other. For example, in “Romeo Must Die”, even though it’s an action movie, the supposed relationship between Jet Li and Aaliyah was nonexistent due to a lack of chemistry.

2. “Laws of Attraction” is not really laugh-out-loud funny. This movie doesn’t appeal to the demographic segment that needs that type of humor. I chuckled at most of the jokes and laughed at two. Overall, I enjoyed the slightly sophisticated, and sometimes naughty, sense of humor.

3. Personally, being romantic is almost synonymous with being idealistic, where truth, beauty, freedom, and love always prevail. This movie definitely follows all those things, even when it’s centered on divorces and lawyers.

Audrey’s mom (Frances Fisher) was another bright spot of the movie. Her interactions with Moore were very realistic. And unlike most good actors who overact when they only have a few scenes in a movie, Fisher was subtle and natural.

I also enjoyed the plot devise that brought the two main characters together; they’re just a pair of lawyers who meet through a case. I’ve been getting the feeling that writers are running out of ideas on how to get people to meet in romantic movies. How likely is it for a magazine writer who needs to loose a guy in 10 days and an ad executive who makes a bet for an account to meet? Or how about a duke named Leoplod traveling back in time to find the woman of his dreams? Give me a break.

THE BAD

All of the other plot devices are about as subtle as stubbing your toe on a table leg. First, the movie sets up the amount of money Serena and Thorne has before they were divorced. Woods and Rafferty also go to a posh castle in Ireland. Then, the couple is involved in more excessive drinking. Somehow, after the first 30 minutes, the writer decided that some extraneous situations were needed to push the two together. The great acting by Moore and Brosnan smoothed over most rough spots, but that didn’t make the forced plot points less obvious.

I also disliked Thorne and Serena Jamison. They felt awkward and hamstrung for some reason. I’m sure there are really outlandish couples out there, but the characterization of those two did not feel real. The movie could have worked without them. It could have even used the original case where Audrey and Daniel met.

The pacing was also on and off. It was fast and funny at first, but then slows all the way down when the Jamisons are introduced. Ireland was fast again, but the movie slows after that. Even though the movie only lasted 1.5 hours, it felt a lot longer.

Lastly, this is a traditional romantic comedy. This genre wins acclaims and awards as rarely as it shows originality. As I noted at the end of the plot summarization, the ending should not surprise anyone.

THE UGLY (otherwise known as the Truth)

Question: When watching “Shindler’s List”, do you expect a lighthearted movie that will set a romantic mood for an amorous evening?

The truth is, not every movie is worthy of Academy Awards and not every movie should be. There are times when you need to watch something fun for a date. I hate reading newspaper reviews that trash perfectly good movies just because they aren’t high art. Even though “Laws of Attraction” isn’t the best movie ever, it is well acted and accomplishes what it sets out to do. I rate it 4 out of 5 amongst its peers, not as better than 80% of all other movies. So if you want to catch a romantic comedy with your significant other, I do recommend this movie.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The public is the only critic whose opinion is worth anything at all.

That being the case, there's no point in reproducing entire reviews. A link is sufficient, especially if you haven't obtained permission from the rights holder. (The HTF rules specifically address this.) I'm going to delete the various quoted reviews, leaving space for a link should you choose to provide one.

M.

 

[Andrew Kain]

Since I cannot post link as I am a new member, I only add the highlights of the reviews. Hope you understand.

 

[Andrew Kain]

The movie really worked. Scrip and Plot wise. A lot of romantic-comedies these days are so bland and just don't work right (Along Came Polly, for example). It's rare that you encounter a romantic-comedy that works now a’ days... and it was such breath of fresh air to walk out of a romantic-comedy feeling satisfied with the film as a whole. I liked that "Laws" was about "real" people unlike some of the horrible "teen" Romanic-comedies .

 

[Holadem]

That was weird...

--
H