Log in

No account? Create an account

Movie Review: Laws of Attraction

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 2nd, 2004 | 09:40 pm
気持ち: sleepy sleepy
音楽: Born To Reign

Marriage is never an issue to joke about, whether a person has true intentions of marrying the person they are with, or whether the decision is an impulsive response created from the spur of the moment. However, many people, after marrying, fail to realize the difficulties of maintaining a marriage and resort to divorce as a solution quicker than bakers resort to sugar for cake baking. In Peter Howitt’s romantic comedy, “Laws of Attraction,” the issue of divorce and marriage are challenged.
Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) is a successful divorce lawyer with one major case she is unable to win, the case of falling in love. Battling divorce case after divorce case has adamantly convinced her not to marry and completely steered her away from the idea of dating. However, her case of remaining single, as well the case for her recent client, is about to be challenged by the new lawyer in town, Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Bronson).
When Rafferty moves back into New York, he meets Audrey and finds her to be fascinating. He is intrigued by the way she is able to hold herself in court and desires to become acquainted with her both on a professional and personal level. The only thing that stops him from doing so is the strong opposition displayed to him from Woods. For every advance he throws her way, she counterstrikes with direct personal insults toward Rafferty’s methods of practice.
Feelings do begin to change when Rafferty and Woods, while conducting an investigation for their recent court battle, travel to Ireland and partake in the local festival. Enjoying the jubilant and warm celebration and becoming completely intoxicated, the two opposing lawyers end up marrying each other. How will the frantic and love resisting Audrey cope with the fact of being married to the enemy? Will Rafferty actually find strong evidence to end the lonely nights of Audrey without objection?
Watching this film was quite enjoyable in every aspect because it had a unique twist to it, which is normally not seen in a romantic comedy, the stereotypical gender roles were switched. Normally, in a romantic comedy, you have the woman who is head over heels over the male character, and the male character is opposing being committed to one woman. With this film, Julianne Moore’s character takes the role of a stereotypical male, fighting against marriage, being committed to one person (or anyone for that matter), putting work before every corner of her life. On the other hand, Bronson’s character is charming, kind, and considerate of Moore’s character. Completely crazy about Moore, that he is willing to sacrifice his career to be with her. He is sensitive and remains hopeful after every heartbreaking act brought on by Moore’s character. Having this unique twist in the film is one of many reasons to consider watching this film.
Unfortunately, while the switch in gender roles creates a strong argument to watch the film, reaching to the climatic scene (when the two lawyers marry) it a long wait. It is assumed that in order to deliver the full impact of the relationship between the two characters, it is equally prominent to develop the characters prior to the climatic marriage. However, this in turn created a “dragging” feeling in the film. Prior to watching the film, the audience is already aware that the marriage will take place, but waiting towards nearly the end of the film took away the “uh-oh, now what” reaction.
Regardless of the long drag to the climatic moment, I still enjoyed the film. I thought that Moore and Bronson were well paired for the film, and found it to be quite comical as well. Unlike George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones’s “Intolerable Cruelty,” this film had a bonafide message behind it. Nonetheless, it is a romantic comedy, uncommon to others, but quite enjoyable. I strongly recommend watching this film, especially if you are one to enjoy romantic comedies.

Comments {0}