AP Review: 'Laws of Attraction' Snappy, Light
04-29-04, 10:48 AM
#1
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP Review: 'Laws of Attraction' Snappy, Light
Review: 'Laws of Attraction' Snappy, Light
1 hour, 21 minutes ago
By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Entertainment Writer
"Laws of Attraction" does everything "Intolerable Cruelty" tried to do, and then some.
Unlike last year's Coen brothers romantic comedy — in which the witty banter and the repeated marrying and divorcing wore thin about two-thirds of the way in, despite the glorious George Clooney (news) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (news) — this movie stays light, crisp and snappy until the end.
This makes it sound like a can of soda — possibly something diet and lemon-lime flavored — but a glass of champagne is a more apt comparison. The film from director Peter Howitt ("Sliding Doors") definitely tries to evoke a fizzy, retro New York kind of energy, with its fabulous restaurants and apartments and the expensively dressed characters who inhabit them.
Whereas Clooney played a divorce lawyer and Zeta-Jones his femme fatale client, Pierce Brosnan (news) and Julianne Moore (news) play dueling divorce lawyers who clash in and out of court.
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.
You know even before Daniel Rafferty and Audrey Woods meet that they'll instantly hate each other, but ultimately end up falling in love. There isn't much room for surprise in this kind of movie.
Rakishly handsome Daniel and prim control freak Audrey end up on opposing ends of several high-profile divorce cases before snippy Judge Abromovitz (Nora Dunn). The biggest of all involves self-involved rock star Thorne Jamison (Michael Sheen (news), playing a sort of young Ozzy Osbourne) and his volatile fashion designer wife, Serena (Parker Posey (news), who's so hyper, she positively vibrates).
Thorne and Serena both want control of the Irish castle they shared, which forces his lawyer, Audrey, and her lawyer, Daniel, to trek to Ireland to take depositions from the confused staff.
The cinematography of the lush Irish countryside is lovely and all, but Howitt slows the film's pacing almost to a standstill to give us time to take it in. "Laws of Attraction" almost becomes an entirely different movie in Ireland, and it makes us long for the one we were watching before — especially because that one included Frances Fisher (news) as Audrey's plastic surgery-obsessed socialite mother.
(That it's physically impossible for Fisher, at 51, to be the mother of Moore, at 43, is only part of the joke. She's sassy, sexy and gets many of the best lines in the script from Aline Brosh McKenna and "Steel Magnolias" writer Robert Harling.)
Something noteworthy does happen in Ireland, though: Daniel and Audrey wake up in bed together after a night of heavy drinking and realize they've gotten married (which we see in trailers for the movie).
Here's where it really resembles "Intolerable Cruelty," but thankfully the movie doesn't drag the gag out too long. Quite the opposite: It wraps up a little too tidily, but "Laws of Attraction" has charmed so sufficiently until then, there's no need to object.
"Laws of Attraction," a New Line Cinema release, is rated PG-13 for sexual content and language. Running time: 87 minutes. Three stars out of four.
1 hour, 21 minutes ago
By CHRISTY LEMIRE, AP Entertainment Writer
"Laws of Attraction" does everything "Intolerable Cruelty" tried to do, and then some.
Unlike last year's Coen brothers romantic comedy — in which the witty banter and the repeated marrying and divorcing wore thin about two-thirds of the way in, despite the glorious George Clooney (news) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (news) — this movie stays light, crisp and snappy until the end.
This makes it sound like a can of soda — possibly something diet and lemon-lime flavored — but a glass of champagne is a more apt comparison. The film from director Peter Howitt ("Sliding Doors") definitely tries to evoke a fizzy, retro New York kind of energy, with its fabulous restaurants and apartments and the expensively dressed characters who inhabit them.
Whereas Clooney played a divorce lawyer and Zeta-Jones his femme fatale client, Pierce Brosnan (news) and Julianne Moore (news) play dueling divorce lawyers who clash in and out of court.
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.
You know even before Daniel Rafferty and Audrey Woods meet that they'll instantly hate each other, but ultimately end up falling in love. There isn't much room for surprise in this kind of movie.
Rakishly handsome Daniel and prim control freak Audrey end up on opposing ends of several high-profile divorce cases before snippy Judge Abromovitz (Nora Dunn). The biggest of all involves self-involved rock star Thorne Jamison (Michael Sheen (news), playing a sort of young Ozzy Osbourne) and his volatile fashion designer wife, Serena (Parker Posey (news), who's so hyper, she positively vibrates).
Thorne and Serena both want control of the Irish castle they shared, which forces his lawyer, Audrey, and her lawyer, Daniel, to trek to Ireland to take depositions from the confused staff.
The cinematography of the lush Irish countryside is lovely and all, but Howitt slows the film's pacing almost to a standstill to give us time to take it in. "Laws of Attraction" almost becomes an entirely different movie in Ireland, and it makes us long for the one we were watching before — especially because that one included Frances Fisher (news) as Audrey's plastic surgery-obsessed socialite mother.
(That it's physically impossible for Fisher, at 51, to be the mother of Moore, at 43, is only part of the joke. She's sassy, sexy and gets many of the best lines in the script from Aline Brosh McKenna and "Steel Magnolias" writer Robert Harling.)
Something noteworthy does happen in Ireland, though: Daniel and Audrey wake up in bed together after a night of heavy drinking and realize they've gotten married (which we see in trailers for the movie).
Here's where it really resembles "Intolerable Cruelty," but thankfully the movie doesn't drag the gag out too long. Quite the opposite: It wraps up a little too tidily, but "Laws of Attraction" has charmed so sufficiently until then, there's no need to object.
"Laws of Attraction," a New Line Cinema release, is rated PG-13 for sexual content and language. Running time: 87 minutes. Three stars out of four.
04-29-04, 08:56 PM
#2
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now as the film hits theaters just before the presummer season gets under way, Friendly pointed out, "With all the theme park movies out there and movies based on comic books and loaded with special effects, maybe we've got some good counterprogramming here for adults. I hope there's room in the marketplace for a movie like this that doesn't have one special effect in it and just relies solely on performances and dialogue and characters. What happened to those films? I think there is a place for those movies and I think (adults) or even younger (moviegoers) want an alternative."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000500327
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000500327
. . .
04-29-04, 10:13 PM
#4
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Saw it and enjoyed it a great deal. Moore is eye candy (Well atleast for my Red hair/pale skin obession) and Brosnan is over all enjoyable in his attempt to move away from a bond character.
Enjoyable counter programing to the Summer popcorn flicks.
Enjoyable counter programing to the Summer popcorn flicks.
04-30-04, 07:45 AM
#7
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAWS OF ATTRACTION
Cast a sass act
by Louis B. Hobson
Calgary Sun
There’s no shortage of wit or sass in the new battle-of-the-sexes comedy Laws of Attraction and, boy, is that refreshing.
Like those vintage sparring comedies that starred Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert or Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, Laws of Attraction holds few plot surprises.
What it offers is actors who know how to play the situations for maximum fun and maximum laughs. Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) has put her private life on hold to become one of New York’s most feared but respected divorce attorneys.
In the courtroom, Audrey is part-determined pitbull and part-sly fox.
She finally meets her match when she encounters Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) who takes her off-guard in the bedroom, as well as in the courtroom.
The refreshing thing in this relationship is that it is Audrey who suffers from commitment phobia and Daniel who longs for the security of marriage. It’s inevitable Audrey and Daniel will progress from lust to love
and it’s so much fun watching Moore grapple with feelings she thought were dead, if not impossible.
Moore has built her reputation on dramatic roles in which she lays bare the inner turmoil and sufferings of her characters.
This time she relies more on pratfalls to demonstrate Audrey’s escalating dilemma.
Moore seems as natural and confident in Audrey’s comic skin as she has in her most famous dramatic roles.
It helps she has such a great sparring partner in Brosnan, who can be slick and charming without ever seeming sleazy.
It’s fun to watch Brosnan play the love-sick puppy when he has practically built his career on being the rakish seducer.
While Moore and Brosnan play the sophisticated lovers, Parker Posey and Michael Sheen get to go way overboard as the feuding artists who hire Daniel and Audrey to handle their volatile, high-profile divorce. Frances Fisher managers to upstage everyone in the film as Audrey’s youth-obsessed, much-married mother. Fisher delivers her lines either dripping in acid or coated with satiny seduction.
The only time Laws of Attraction threatens to stumble is when the action switches from New York to Ireland.
Director Peter Howitt, who keeps the fun bubbly and breezy in Manhattan, slows the pace to allow the audience, as well as the pairs of lovers, to absorb the rural beauty of Ireland.
Even Moore and Brosnan seem momentarily bewitched by their visit to the Isle of the leprechauns but get back on track when the find themselves back in New York.
Laws of Attraction is a movie about adults for adults and that is as beguiling as it is rare.
Cast a sass act
by Louis B. Hobson
Calgary Sun
There’s no shortage of wit or sass in the new battle-of-the-sexes comedy Laws of Attraction and, boy, is that refreshing.
Like those vintage sparring comedies that starred Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert or Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, Laws of Attraction holds few plot surprises.
What it offers is actors who know how to play the situations for maximum fun and maximum laughs. Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) has put her private life on hold to become one of New York’s most feared but respected divorce attorneys.
In the courtroom, Audrey is part-determined pitbull and part-sly fox.
She finally meets her match when she encounters Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) who takes her off-guard in the bedroom, as well as in the courtroom.
The refreshing thing in this relationship is that it is Audrey who suffers from commitment phobia and Daniel who longs for the security of marriage. It’s inevitable Audrey and Daniel will progress from lust to love
and it’s so much fun watching Moore grapple with feelings she thought were dead, if not impossible.
Moore has built her reputation on dramatic roles in which she lays bare the inner turmoil and sufferings of her characters.
This time she relies more on pratfalls to demonstrate Audrey’s escalating dilemma.
Moore seems as natural and confident in Audrey’s comic skin as she has in her most famous dramatic roles.
It helps she has such a great sparring partner in Brosnan, who can be slick and charming without ever seeming sleazy.
It’s fun to watch Brosnan play the love-sick puppy when he has practically built his career on being the rakish seducer.
While Moore and Brosnan play the sophisticated lovers, Parker Posey and Michael Sheen get to go way overboard as the feuding artists who hire Daniel and Audrey to handle their volatile, high-profile divorce. Frances Fisher managers to upstage everyone in the film as Audrey’s youth-obsessed, much-married mother. Fisher delivers her lines either dripping in acid or coated with satiny seduction.
The only time Laws of Attraction threatens to stumble is when the action switches from New York to Ireland.
Director Peter Howitt, who keeps the fun bubbly and breezy in Manhattan, slows the pace to allow the audience, as well as the pairs of lovers, to absorb the rural beauty of Ireland.
Even Moore and Brosnan seem momentarily bewitched by their visit to the Isle of the leprechauns but get back on track when the find themselves back in New York.
Laws of Attraction is a movie about adults for adults and that is as beguiling as it is rare.
04-30-04, 06:38 PM
#10
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to smack CHRISTY LEMIRE... I thought Intolerable Cruelty was great (blind buy from BBV for me), but I'm a big Coen fan. This movie (judging solely on previews) looked like it was kind of a blatant rip...
Off topic, Ebert says: "As for Pierce Brosnan, anyone who thinks he needs to be replaced as James Bond is starkers," and wins even more points in my book, once again.
Off topic, Ebert says: "As for Pierce Brosnan, anyone who thinks he needs to be replaced as James Bond is starkers," and wins even more points in my book, once again.
04-30-04, 10:37 PM
#11
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”? It went the way of Vincente Minnelli. So is Laws of Attraction a great comedy? Get real. What was the last great comedy you saw, or the last great anything? No, 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 two stars are battling New York divorce lawyers who fall in love hating each other. We just saw the same plot with George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones in the godawful Coen Brothers fiasco Intolerable Cruelty, but so what? Everything is a copy of something else these days; inspired originality is as hard to come by as one of Mr. Brosnan’s 007 Maseratis at a half-price sale. And even with its plodding tempo and dull padding, Laws of Attraction is a better, edgier movie. The adversarial Moore-Brosnan duo is rich, beautiful and successful, but they never go anywhere. They do not date, or end up on Page Six. They don’t seem to have any friends or lovers or get any bang for their bucks. What is wrong with this picture? She is Audrey Miller, a crack attorney who is not beyond framing the husbands of her female clients to get them better settlements. Now she’s up to her Palm Pilot fighting off the toughest opponent she’s ever faced in a courtroom. He is Daniel Rafferty, new in town, smart, ruthless, a GQ cover who has never lost a case. From their opening arguments on, it’s open war in the divorce-court trenches, using every strategy from apology to insult as they thrust and parry their way through New York, drinking lethal Mexican cocktails, landing in bed in a moment of horny weakness with him showing up in court dangling her panties. Two pit bulls whose battles in one divorce trial after another become fodder for the tabloid-news channels. Ridiculous, of course, but it’s the same stuff they print every day in the New York Post. Things boil over with the latest boldface divorce war between two instant celebs, a fried-brains-a-flaky designer named Serena (Parker Posey) and her rock-star husband, Thorne (Michael Sheen), the lead singer for a group called the Needles. Each of them is fighting over a castle in Ireland, so it’s off to the land of leprechauns to depose the household staff. Among the fiddles, clog dances and shamrocks, the movie takes a detour, and the two very charming stars get a chance to display how much charm they really have, getting married in a drunken Guinness stout stupor. Back in Manhattan, when he wins the divorce case because of a piece of evidence he finds accidentally in her garbage bin, it’s time for them to hit the judge’s chambers for their own divorce. By this time, the movie has collapsed along with every attempt at artificial respiration—but they’re so pretty to look at, and this movie isn’t over yet. If you haven’t dozed off, there are more surprises on the way.
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. And there is a crisp, appealing and hilarious contribution by Frances Fisher, who plays Ms. Moore’s rich, vain mother. This ageless logarithm with the face lifts and the Eve Arden wisecracks is, in real life, almost the same age as Julianne Moore. When Mr. Brosnan meets her for the first time, he asks, “Are you really 56?” She purrs girlishly, “Parts of me are.” She’s got all the best lines—or maybe it’s just that they’re the only lines in the picture that don’t sound like they’ve been rewritten a dozen times. Depending on which credits you read, several screenwriters have been listed. Sometimes two and sometimes three—Aline Brosh McKenna, Karey Kilpatrick and Robert Harling—are credited, which is never a good sign. The dialogue is so muddled it’s hard to know who wrote what, but Mr. Harling (Steel Magnolias, The First Wives Club) has such a talent for clever zingers you can almost place bets on which lines are his. The movie’s weak stab at making some kind of statement on the divorce issue doesn’t ring true at all, and although the British director, Peter Howitt, proved with the Gwyneth Paltrow film Sliding Doors that he can juggle styles and tempos without confusing excess, he doesn’t seem entirely comfortable with American comedy. Thank you, Jesus, for the two stars. It’s their movie all the way, and Mr. Howitt has the wisdom to just get out of the way and let them go at each other like chinchillas in heat
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”? It went the way of Vincente Minnelli. So is Laws of Attraction a great comedy? Get real. What was the last great comedy you saw, or the last great anything? No, 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 two stars are battling New York divorce lawyers who fall in love hating each other. We just saw the same plot with George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones in the godawful Coen Brothers fiasco Intolerable Cruelty, but so what? Everything is a copy of something else these days; inspired originality is as hard to come by as one of Mr. Brosnan’s 007 Maseratis at a half-price sale. And even with its plodding tempo and dull padding, Laws of Attraction is a better, edgier movie. The adversarial Moore-Brosnan duo is rich, beautiful and successful, but they never go anywhere. They do not date, or end up on Page Six. They don’t seem to have any friends or lovers or get any bang for their bucks. What is wrong with this picture? She is Audrey Miller, a crack attorney who is not beyond framing the husbands of her female clients to get them better settlements. Now she’s up to her Palm Pilot fighting off the toughest opponent she’s ever faced in a courtroom. He is Daniel Rafferty, new in town, smart, ruthless, a GQ cover who has never lost a case. From their opening arguments on, it’s open war in the divorce-court trenches, using every strategy from apology to insult as they thrust and parry their way through New York, drinking lethal Mexican cocktails, landing in bed in a moment of horny weakness with him showing up in court dangling her panties. Two pit bulls whose battles in one divorce trial after another become fodder for the tabloid-news channels. Ridiculous, of course, but it’s the same stuff they print every day in the New York Post. Things boil over with the latest boldface divorce war between two instant celebs, a fried-brains-a-flaky designer named Serena (Parker Posey) and her rock-star husband, Thorne (Michael Sheen), the lead singer for a group called the Needles. Each of them is fighting over a castle in Ireland, so it’s off to the land of leprechauns to depose the household staff. Among the fiddles, clog dances and shamrocks, the movie takes a detour, and the two very charming stars get a chance to display how much charm they really have, getting married in a drunken Guinness stout stupor. Back in Manhattan, when he wins the divorce case because of a piece of evidence he finds accidentally in her garbage bin, it’s time for them to hit the judge’s chambers for their own divorce. By this time, the movie has collapsed along with every attempt at artificial respiration—but they’re so pretty to look at, and this movie isn’t over yet. If you haven’t dozed off, there are more surprises on the way.
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. And there is a crisp, appealing and hilarious contribution by Frances Fisher, who plays Ms. Moore’s rich, vain mother. This ageless logarithm with the face lifts and the Eve Arden wisecracks is, in real life, almost the same age as Julianne Moore. When Mr. Brosnan meets her for the first time, he asks, “Are you really 56?” She purrs girlishly, “Parts of me are.” She’s got all the best lines—or maybe it’s just that they’re the only lines in the picture that don’t sound like they’ve been rewritten a dozen times. Depending on which credits you read, several screenwriters have been listed. Sometimes two and sometimes three—Aline Brosh McKenna, Karey Kilpatrick and Robert Harling—are credited, which is never a good sign. The dialogue is so muddled it’s hard to know who wrote what, but Mr. Harling (Steel Magnolias, The First Wives Club) has such a talent for clever zingers you can almost place bets on which lines are his. The movie’s weak stab at making some kind of statement on the divorce issue doesn’t ring true at all, and although the British director, Peter Howitt, proved with the Gwyneth Paltrow film Sliding Doors that he can juggle styles and tempos without confusing excess, he doesn’t seem entirely comfortable with American comedy. Thank you, Jesus, for the two stars. It’s their movie all the way, and Mr. Howitt has the wisdom to just get out of the way and let them go at each other like chinchillas in heat
05-01-04, 12:34 AM
#12
DVD Talk Limited Edition
We can find the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Why is everyone posting a review from some other source? If someone sees the movie themselves, then feel free to post a review of your own.
05-01-04, 04:34 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Seantn
We can find the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Why is everyone posting a review from some other source? If someone sees the movie themselves, then feel free to post a review of your own.
We can find the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Why is everyone posting a review from some other source? If someone sees the movie themselves, then feel free to post a review of your own.
Originally posted by drjay
I want to smack CHRISTY LEMIRE... I thought Intolerable Cruelty was great (blind buy from BBV for me), but I'm a big Coen fan. This movie (judging solely on previews) looked like it was kind of a blatant rip...
I want to smack CHRISTY LEMIRE... I thought Intolerable Cruelty was great (blind buy from BBV for me), but I'm a big Coen fan. This movie (judging solely on previews) looked like it was kind of a blatant rip...
05-01-04, 09:38 AM
#16
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,282
Received 1,802 Likes
on
1,125 Posts
I've been looking forward to this one since I saw the first trailer.
05-02-04, 01:56 AM
#17
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, theyˇ¦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 canˇ¦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 itˇ¦s terrible watching a supposed romance when the people donˇ¦t look like theyˇ¦re attracted to each other. For example, in ˇ§Romeo Must Dieˇ¨, even though itˇ¦s an action movie, the supposed relationship between Jet Li and Aaliyah was nonexistent due to a lack of chemistry.
2. ˇ§Laws of Attractionˇ¨ is not really laugh-out-loud funny. This movie doesnˇ¦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 itˇ¦s centered on divorces and lawyers.
Audreyˇ¦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; theyˇ¦re just a pair of lawyers who meet through a case. Iˇ¦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 didnˇ¦t make the forced plot points less obvious.
I also disliked Thorne and Serena Jamison. They felt awkward and hamstrung for some reason. Iˇ¦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 ˇ§Shindlerˇ¦s Listˇ¨, 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 arenˇ¦t high art. Even though ˇ§Laws of Attractionˇ¨ isnˇ¦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, 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.
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, theyˇ¦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 canˇ¦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 itˇ¦s terrible watching a supposed romance when the people donˇ¦t look like theyˇ¦re attracted to each other. For example, in ˇ§Romeo Must Dieˇ¨, even though itˇ¦s an action movie, the supposed relationship between Jet Li and Aaliyah was nonexistent due to a lack of chemistry.
2. ˇ§Laws of Attractionˇ¨ is not really laugh-out-loud funny. This movie doesnˇ¦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 itˇ¦s centered on divorces and lawyers.
Audreyˇ¦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; theyˇ¦re just a pair of lawyers who meet through a case. Iˇ¦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 didnˇ¦t make the forced plot points less obvious.
I also disliked Thorne and Serena Jamison. They felt awkward and hamstrung for some reason. Iˇ¦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 ˇ§Shindlerˇ¦s Listˇ¨, 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 arenˇ¦t high art. Even though ˇ§Laws of Attractionˇ¨ isnˇ¦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, 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.
Last edited by sprinterX; 05-02-04 at 12:07 PM.
05-02-04, 03:20 PM
#18
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: the South
Posts: 3,764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sprinterX
I also disliked Thorne and Serena Jamison. They felt awkward and hamstrung for some reason. Iˇ¦m sure there are really outlandish couples out there, but the characterization of those two did not feel real.
I also disliked Thorne and Serena Jamison. They felt awkward and hamstrung for some reason. Iˇ¦m sure there are really outlandish couples out there, but the characterization of those two did not feel real.
Spoiler:
Kinda hard to take.
