Laws of Attraction (2004)

Laws of Attraction (2004) ** (out of 4) Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) is a very successful divorce attorney who spends most of her nights alone in her apartment eating junk food. Whenever she does get out of the house she's usually with her aging mother (Francis Fisher) who has had a few too many operations done to make her look younger. Audrey swears up and down that she isn't afraid of relationships but instead just can't get involved because she's too busy with her clients' needs.While taking on a major divorce case she meets her new opposing attorney, the very handsome Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) who has yet to lose a case. The two don't strike it off too well but their jobs force them into a business dinner where they end up having too much to drink and eventually falling into bed. Audrey blames the booze but Daniel seems to want a relationship but when their case starts to break up so does the relationship. Soon the New York media has a spotlight on the two most powerful divorce attorneys who seem to be having their own fights behind the scenes.For starters let's get some personal feelings out into the air. To me, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn were the greatest on-screen duo in the history of film. Their romantic comedies ranging from Adam's Rib to my personal favorite Woman of the Year are among the greatest films ever made and when watching this Adam's Rib wannabe I couldn't help but notice these romantic comedies haven't changed in sixty plus years. Once again we get an attractive couple fighting, screaming, fighting some more and then realizing they are in love.I'm certainly not a sourpuss but my God, could writers try to come up with at least one original idea when doing these types of films? Perhaps this genre has just been beaten to death so bad that those watching these films want the fighting then at the last minute makeup but to me watching films like this are becoming a very tiresome chore because by the time the opening credits are over there's really no point in watching the film because it's something you've seen countless times before. I'm not saying one should kill the other's family at the end of the movie but please, offer at least one thing that differs from the other twenty romantic comedies that are released each year.Is Laws of Attraction a horrible movie? No, none of these films ever are but I don't see the point in watching the same thing over and over. The only difference in these types of films are the leading actors and the success of raising the screenplay out of boredom lies on their shoulders. Pierce Brosnan is a very charming actor and certainly the best thing going for this film. He isn't offered much to do but he's charm and smile at least bring some freshness to this overdone film. Julianne Moore on the other hand has always left a sore spot with me. To me, Moore can either be brilliant or fall flat on her face and that's exactly what she does her. She brought nothing new to her character and didn't have half the charm of Brosnan.With the all too familiar story and the lack of any real chemistry between the stars there really isn't much left in the film. Francis Fisher is wasted in the tired role of an old hag who is constantly giving advice in between her plastic surgeries. Parker Posey, a wonderful character actress, comes off looking very bad in the role of a divorcée who has nothing to do but keep asking Brosnan to cut her husband's balls off. That certain male part is also a constant running joke throughout the movie and not once did it make me laugh or smile, which is a shame because I enjoy private jokes. In the end, if you walk into your local rental store and see Laws of Attraction on the shelf, run towards the classics area and pick up Adam's Rib or Woman of the Year.

I liked this movie. I picked it up in the 5 dollar bin at Wal-Mart and was surprised.If you're looking for an original comedy this isn't the one for you. The plot is predictable, but overall if you want to just see a cute film about goofy love, this isn't half bad. I wouldn't have spent nine dollars on a movie ticket for this one, but 5 dollars at Wal-Mart wasn't bad at all.I'm giving it a 7 because it was, overall, predictable but cute. Julianne Moore is wonderful and so is Pierce Brosnan and I don't even like him very much. It's a movie that doesn't try to hard to impress. It knows exactly what it is, a romantic comedy and doesn't try to get away from that. Once again, predictable but cute.

Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) and Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) are New Yorks finest divorce attorneys, but when celebrity Couple (Parker Posey and Michael Sheen) raise the stakes in their divorce, Audrey and Daniel set out to make their cases and end up getting hitched themselves. For the sake of their reputations they must pretend that they are really in love.Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan have a very good on-screen chemistry, and they are helped by some nice direction and a good script; there's plenty of laughs in this romantic comedy, but it's not a real tearjerker like some others in the genre.7/10 A fine effort

This film, about two opposing divorce counsels, played by Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, had no merits to speak about. In the blink of an eye, they meet in court and in the blink of the eye again, are married. How? Why? I wasn't even sure how they got from Point A to Point B but it didn't matter, nor did the fact that there was no chemistry between the two at all.Quite frankly, although this film is not highly rated, I'm surprised to see it rated as high as a five. Of course, I thought INTOLERABLE CRUELTY was also one of the worst films I've ever seen, and people seemed to like that. I would label this film "Intolerable Cruelty 2." There were, for me, parallels between the two films. They both centered around couples who had no depth of character, evoked no empathy, and I couldn't have cared less what happened to them. Only Frances Fisher, as Ms. Moore's mother, managed to redeem a tiny piece of this ghastly film.When I had initially heard that Julianne Moore received bad marks for her "comedic" talents, I thought surely, the critics must be being a bit unfair to this very fine actress. But she wasn't very good. Seeing her in this role reminded me of a time when I attended an office Xmas party and saw someone I respected down and out drunk. It was embarrassing and I wished I had never seen it and never let it tarnish my image of that person. However, in defense of Ms. Moore, who I still think is a fine actor, I can't imagine the finest comedic actress in the world saving this film.As they say, if it's not on the page, it ain't on the stage. In my opinion, when this film was finished, it was put in the wrong can. It should have gone in the trash can. Horrible, boring, clichéd script that didn't know what it was supposed to be. The plot was not believable. That's fine, if you're consistent. I believe that Mr. Ed could talk and did talk to Wilbur. But I had no idea what this was supposed to be.Other than that, it was a wonderful film. :0)