|
|
Film
|
|
Laws of Attraction
Even though this film adheres to the conventions of today's frenetic romantic comedies, it’s hard not to succumb at times to the natural charm of its two leads.
Sunday, May 2, 2004
By Todd Gilchrist
|
|
When did romantic comedies get so damn compli~cated?
There was a time, or so it seemed, when boy met girl, love blos~somed, and all was right with the world. Nowadays, with the obstacles thrown in their way, it’s a wonder the main characters in these movies manage to get together at all.
Take, for example, Laws of Attraction. Audrey (Julianne Moore) and Daniel (Pierce Brosnan) are dueling divorce lawyers, which by definition makes them mortal enemies. Their respective prowess pits them against one another at every turn and keeps them revolving in the same legal and social circles, no matter how much they profess to hate one another. Naturally, they doth protest too much, and, before long, they find themselves knotted in a mess of legal and personal entanglements before confronting whether or not they actually have real, true-blue feelings for one another.
Following in the tradition of Speechless, Alex & Emma and the Magna Cum Laude graduate from the school of Opposites Attract, Intolerable Cruelty, Laws of Attraction is a frequently cute romantic comedy. It’s the story of two crazy kids who hate each other, are serendipitously thrown together time and again and slowly realize they're not that different ('Hey, all of those qualities I thought I hated, I really love!'), all leading up to some inevitable close-credit canoodling set to Motown r&b.
With Moore and Brosnan as the star-crossed pair, the sparks that fly are brighter than in your typical romantic comedy. But ultimately, the movie cannot help but follow its predecessors a little too closely down the aisle as it marches towards a certain and too-familiar honeymoon destination.
If it sounds like I really didn’t like the movie, then honestly, I protest too much. Seldom have the kind of romantic hijinks on display in Laws felt as invigorating as they sometimes do here, bandied back and forth by two actors who not only command the screen but effortlessly convey intelligence.
Moore’s willingness to embody her characters, no matter how unattractive they may emotionally or physically, remonstrates her reputation as one of today’s best actresses. Only in her case could a piffling commercial venture such as this be considered a stretch, but she lends Audrey’s court- and bedroom antics gravitas while retaining the dignity actresses like Sandra Bullock forewent years ago in lieu of box office success.
Brosnan, on the other hand, cheerfully sheds his polished image as the terminally-besuited Bond and practically reinvents himself as a shaggy D.A.; once the big screen’s most annoyingly self-assured leading man, Brosnan still cuts a fine figure but has now filled it out with some real emotional heft. Rather than playing Daniel as a rabble rouser whose unconventional approach wins cases and Audrey’s heart, he gives the character a humanity that makes us believe she could fall for him, and more importantly, that he could fall for her.
It’s no small accomplishment for an established actor to escape association with the role he or she has been, is, and will be connected to for the remainder of their career, but Brosnan resoundingly pulls it off, and suggests he might have a pretty good career left after he hangs up his Walter PPK.
Though Laws of Attraction’s dominant plotline follows the unlikely pair as they litigate the divorce proceedings for a rock & roll lead singer (Michael Sheen) and his fashionista wife (Parker Posey), we really could care less about the peripheral characters of the film, with the notable exception of Frances Fisher’s Sara, who gives the movie a much-needed jolt of irreverence as Audrey’s botoxed socialite mother. Where the feuding couples merely delay the film’s inevitable reconciliation and address the genre’s need for conventional conflicts, Sara provides the kind of sass that would electrify a real relationship, while Fisher contributes a captivating counterpoint to Audrey’s stuffy, businesslike approach to her work and love lives.
Otherwise, it’s business as usual here, except for a pair of disruptive visits to Ireland, where Audrey and Daniel’s clients have purchased a castle, leading the film into flat-out comedy territory and showing little consideration for those of us in the audience with dinner reservations. The running time is dragged out to an unconscionable and egregiously unnecessary two hours, which cultivates more impatience than enchantment, and it’s only on the strength of the film’s leads that the audience’s asses stay firmly in their seats until the aforementioned, Motown-themed epilogue.
An additional note of gratitude must be expressed to Norah Jones, whose classic-sounding melodies fill the void left in the wake of Rob Reiner having exhausted the entire catalogues of Sinatra and his crooner contemporaries. Her songs give a voice to all of the would-be lovers who can’t speak plain their star-crossed feelings, and provide a sorely-needed pop hit to attach to the forgettable score by Edward Shearmur.
To reiterate, Laws of Attraction is not a terrible film. But does it build on the existing canon of romantic comedy staples, or just add to their flaccid, sizable mass? Unfortunately, the answer to that question definitely falls into the latter category, and it’s one made doubly disheartening by the fact that the leads are charismatic individuals who could have elevated this material above its conventional origins.
In a way, romantic comedies are a bit like a verdict handed down by a jury that you’re not happy with even though you know it’s right; in this particular case, I’m definitely guilty of enjoying this film against all reasonable doubt. But instead of yielding to execution in the court of public opinion, however, I think I’ll spend my requisite hours of community service steering good folks towards ventures past, present and future where the rewards are greater, and the risks suggest something a bit more challenging than an open-and-shut case of love found, lost and regained.
|
|
|
|
|
 Email
|
 Print
|
|
|
|
|
|