- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Movie Review
Laws of Attraction
By Lee Tistaert Published April 30, 2004
US Release: April 30, 2004
Directed by: Peter Howitt
Starring: Pierce Brosnan , Julianne Moore , Parker Posey , Michael Sheen
PG-13
Running Time: 90 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $17,848,000
Directed by: Peter Howitt
Starring: Pierce Brosnan , Julianne Moore , Parker Posey , Michael Sheen
PG-13
Running Time: 90 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $17,848,000
C
78 of 120
The actors are doing what they can with the material, but the script is just so lame and recycled that they can?t rescue it.
Laws of Attraction is a solid example of why I don?t want to be a film critic for a living. While the job probably has its rewards when the ?good? movie screenings finally come along, it?s occasions like these that just make you shudder (and there are quite a few of these movies out there). This movie has friendly intentions, but it?s when you?ve seen this story so many times previously that it?s just downright frustrating to have to endure it again.
Laws of Attraction is a bit like Intolerable Cruelty (C) in its story, but it does not center around dislikeable people; even if you couldn?t care less about what happens to the duo, they are still much more likable than Clooney and Zeta-Jones? personas in the said romantic comedy. The frustrating part about Laws of Attraction is that the actors are doing what they can with the material, but the script is just so lame and recycled that they can?t rescue it.
The film stars Julianne Moore as Audrey Miller, a single divorce lawyer dedicated to her job, who is about to meet her nemesis, Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan), also a lawyer, and single. Their first run-in with each other is not so smooth, as he comes off as goofy and unprofessional, which puts the two of them at battle. Soon, this bickering relationship leads to an awkward scenario: after they find themselves in bed together one morning, married (after a drunken night), they must undo the knot, which is not an easy task.
What should be an entertaining screwball comedy is instead an unfunny, boring, and clich? movie aimed to please those looking for nothing but a very predictable, cute film. When I say, ?should be,? I?m mostly referring to the two cast names front and center; with their talent, one would think we?d be seeing some quirky scenes and be chuckling along to witty dialogue. Their performances are actually pretty good, as are most deliveries here in general, but they are stuck with a script way under their league.
This is a broad comedy expected to pick up chuckles and laughs simply based on which actor is giving the punchline. Indeed, there is energy within the arguing, but the punchlines are never unexpected. Given the courtroom setting, the jokes are predictable in context and do not offer the type of spark or that ?something? needed to give the viewer the needed guffaw.
Trying to give the film a stylistic edge similar to the genre film, Two for the Road, with Laws? opening credits montage, director Peter Howitt makes a critic error. Instead of making the cinematically knowledgeable viewers notice the homage and appreciate the filmmakers? awareness, the usage actually degrades the experience. Two for the Road is a very well orchestrated film in its writing, acting, and direction, whereas Laws of Attraction makes you aware of all those components that are missing in this romantic adventure.
One can presume every plot note just based on the trailer for this romantic comedy, and for some moviegoers that?s what?s in their craving. This ongoing formula of romantic comedies does win votes out there, but usually not a significant amount unless the hilarity or witty factor is consistent. The attempt at being witty is fairly constant, but the end result is consistently flat.
I?m one of the few people who actually likes You?ve Got Mail (B+) over Sleepless in Seattle (B), and though you know what will happen in the end for both movies, the writing and the acting make you care regardless. With Laws of Attraction, the same goes in predictability, but we?re never convinced our lovebirds are actually a team, and we never care whether they ever will be.
Without these two actors, this misfit flick would probably be even more of a chore to endure, so there is ?some? appreciation on my part. However, when you bring these two names together like this, there?s the suspicion that something rewarding can result; and when that mark is missed to this extent, you?re just amazed at how much potential there could have been.
Laws of Attraction is a bit like Intolerable Cruelty (C) in its story, but it does not center around dislikeable people; even if you couldn?t care less about what happens to the duo, they are still much more likable than Clooney and Zeta-Jones? personas in the said romantic comedy. The frustrating part about Laws of Attraction is that the actors are doing what they can with the material, but the script is just so lame and recycled that they can?t rescue it.
The film stars Julianne Moore as Audrey Miller, a single divorce lawyer dedicated to her job, who is about to meet her nemesis, Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan), also a lawyer, and single. Their first run-in with each other is not so smooth, as he comes off as goofy and unprofessional, which puts the two of them at battle. Soon, this bickering relationship leads to an awkward scenario: after they find themselves in bed together one morning, married (after a drunken night), they must undo the knot, which is not an easy task.
What should be an entertaining screwball comedy is instead an unfunny, boring, and clich? movie aimed to please those looking for nothing but a very predictable, cute film. When I say, ?should be,? I?m mostly referring to the two cast names front and center; with their talent, one would think we?d be seeing some quirky scenes and be chuckling along to witty dialogue. Their performances are actually pretty good, as are most deliveries here in general, but they are stuck with a script way under their league.
This is a broad comedy expected to pick up chuckles and laughs simply based on which actor is giving the punchline. Indeed, there is energy within the arguing, but the punchlines are never unexpected. Given the courtroom setting, the jokes are predictable in context and do not offer the type of spark or that ?something? needed to give the viewer the needed guffaw.
Trying to give the film a stylistic edge similar to the genre film, Two for the Road, with Laws? opening credits montage, director Peter Howitt makes a critic error. Instead of making the cinematically knowledgeable viewers notice the homage and appreciate the filmmakers? awareness, the usage actually degrades the experience. Two for the Road is a very well orchestrated film in its writing, acting, and direction, whereas Laws of Attraction makes you aware of all those components that are missing in this romantic adventure.
One can presume every plot note just based on the trailer for this romantic comedy, and for some moviegoers that?s what?s in their craving. This ongoing formula of romantic comedies does win votes out there, but usually not a significant amount unless the hilarity or witty factor is consistent. The attempt at being witty is fairly constant, but the end result is consistently flat.
I?m one of the few people who actually likes You?ve Got Mail (B+) over Sleepless in Seattle (B), and though you know what will happen in the end for both movies, the writing and the acting make you care regardless. With Laws of Attraction, the same goes in predictability, but we?re never convinced our lovebirds are actually a team, and we never care whether they ever will be.
Without these two actors, this misfit flick would probably be even more of a chore to endure, so there is ?some? appreciation on my part. However, when you bring these two names together like this, there?s the suspicion that something rewarding can result; and when that mark is missed to this extent, you?re just amazed at how much potential there could have been.
Lee's Grade: C
Ranked #78 of 120 between Against the Ropes (#77) and The Sea Inside (#79) for 2004 movies.
Ranked #78 of 120 between Against the Ropes (#77) and The Sea Inside (#79) for 2004 movies.
Lee's Overall Grading: 3025 graded movies
| A | 0.4% | |
| B | 30.0% | |
| C | 61.7% | |
| D | 8.0% | |
| F | 0.0% |
'Laws of Attraction' Articles
- Sneak Preview: "Laws of Attraction"
April 30, 2004 -- Lee Tistaert
