Signed, Sealed and Delivered! (Laws Of Attraction (DVD))

Name: TheChocolateLady

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Laws Of Attraction (DVD)
Date:	22/12/05 (138 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: A charming feel - good movie, actors have chemistry

Disadvantages: A swiss cheese plot, slightly cheesy "chick - flic"

When an undefeated divorce lawyer meets up with another undefeated divorce lawyer, someone's going to be the loser. But when it's Daniel Rafferty who meets up with Audrey Woods, there are going to be more things lost than just case or two – but there also might be something (non-judicial) to be won as well. Pierce Brosnan plays the part of Daniel Rafferty – who is a whip the courtroom but a wimp with his personal appearance. Julianne Moore is cast as Audrey Woods – who roars in her profession but has barely a whimper of a personal life. When the two of them meet up on opposite sides of the table, you know that something's got to give.

Whoever came up with the idea of putting these two actors alongside one another, must have known that it would seem an unlikely combination. And yet, it works, despite the fact that the first thing you'll probably think when you hear the name Pierce Brosnan is "James Bond". Afterwards you'll probably think "adventure" or "thriller" or "drama". But those of his fans who have followed his on-screen career since its early days (like myself), know that the word "comedy" should equally spring to mind - especially to those who know that even James Bond doesn't take himself too seriously.

As for hearing the name Julianne Moore, you might exclusively think "drama" for her performances in such movies as "The Shipping News", "The Hours" and "Far from Heaven". However, this would be an injustice to this versatile actress since she's done such quirky films as "The Big Lebowski" and "An Ideal Husband" - proving that she can do more lighthearted roles as well.

The story in this film is first and foremost about losing – the loss of love, the loss of a court case and even the loss of control. And what gets lost first is the sobriety of these lawyers, and big time. After that, their inhibitions don't stick around too long, either. Of course, this means a drunken tangle between the sheets the night before their first appearance in court against each other. The first real power struggle comes when Rafferty makes the mistake of referring to this personal interlude during the trial, which makes Woods feel humiliated and used, so she declares war - denying the attraction she feels for him, and refusing to believe he has any real feelings for her. Fast forward through a ping-pong of court battles, to the high profile divorce of a rock star and his fashion designer wife. When push comes to shove, the only real dispute on the table ends up being a castle in Ireland and while the two lawyers are there investigating on behalf of their respective clients, they once again get plastered. But this time, instead of just hangovers for their sins, they end up with wedding rings on their fingers, as well. The rest of the film evolves around Woods trying to regain her career and return to being single, while Rafferty tries to make Woods admit that their marriage was not a drunken mistake. The tagline for this movie is: Getting married is a great way to fall in love.

Those of you who are familiar with my movie reviews will note that this is one of the longer plot summaries I've written in a long while. This should be an indication that something is amiss. I do have to admit that there are many holes in this story, and the basically unknown screenwriter, Aline Brosh McKenna leaves us with quite a number of questions. For instance, how is it that Rafferty has a well used and cluttered office, equipped with all the latest gadgets from his most recent Los Angeles client, as well as a fully (and luxuriously) decorated apartment in New York, when within two minutes of the action on screen, when we are given to understand he's just returned from living a long while in California? I can understand that the absence from New York is needed to make it plausible that these two lawyers have never met in court before. So, perhaps he's so wealthy that he can afford to keep both office and apartment in the big apple, while career hopping across the country. But if he's so successful, why is his office in a cheep part of Chinatown? And while we're at it, why doesn't he have a housekeeper, a secretary or at least a good laundry service to take care of his crushed clothing? I guess good help is hard to find, but still, I have my doubts.

Then there's the matter of these two decidedly single people. One wonders how on earth someone who looks like Brosnan could stay unmarried, despite the wrinkled suits and stained ties? And all their efforts to make Brosnan look sloppy, could never disguise his dazzling good looks even underneath a mop of uncombed and gently graying hair or behind a day or two's growth of beard. Moreover, he is made out to be a true romantic, which makes his single status even more suspect. Sure, a busy career, cross-country moves, book writing, TV spots, etc. would put a cramp in anyone's private life. Still, his character truly believes in marriage, despite what his job shows him every day. Sorry, but its very hard to believe that he hasn't come up against even one woman that stirred his heart before Woods came along.

As for Woods, this character has been jaded by her vocation into thinking that marriage is "dead in the water". This could explain her single status. Yet, it's still hard to believe that she has no suitors at all. Mind you, make-up and wardrobe have done an excellent job in making this naturally beautiful woman look as plain as humanly possible. I'd be willing to bet that was a harder job than making Charlize Theron look ugly in Monster. Try as they did, Moore still looks lovely even slumping around in frumpy clothes, her hair put up in a spinster's bun and with her freckles showing all over her face. Plus, she didn't bother to chub up for this part to match the character's sugar junk-food addiction. Sorry, but this just doesn't fly.

The question is, are we willing to forgive such problems with the script? Personally, I am willing - to a certain extent. You see, there are some real comic gems in this movie that will make you laugh out loud. For instance, as our two main characters stand admiring a beautiful Irish vista, (and quoting Rafferty's uncle who sounds as profoundly poetic as James Joyce) their car rolls silently behind them, and falls off of a cliff. The two continue to stand there until the last clink of metal, and then Woods says, "Well that spoiled it for me". HA! Spot on, if you ask me. And the line was perfectly delivered.

So, we now see that Ms Moore does have a good comic sense of timing - and she proves it many times over in this film. Mind you, there are times when she's a bit annoying in her playing of this part. She tended in some places to sound like she was whining rather than getting tough and angry. Not something a successful lawyer would normally do, even one with no love-life. Also, her self-effacing attitude towards herself because of her "plain" looks goes somewhat contrary to someone with so much professional confidence. Still, a complex character is better than a flat one, and who said that we can't contradict ourselves from time to time?

As for her chemistry with Brosnan... come on, who could look at that guy and not have a star or two start glinting in their eyes from his glow. Moore is no exception and while the character tries to hide it, the spark is certainly there, and it shows. There's a nice tousle between her conscious 'hate' for this man and her sub-conscious desire, which seems to only crawl out from beneath her surface when she's had too much to drink. Mind you, she does this without ever over-playing the drunken lady part - a true balance, if I've ever seen one. Nicely done, Julianne.

Brosnan also does a really lovely job with the comedy here, with practically every laugh line delivered with aplomb and not a millisecond too fast or too slow. He also doesn't resort to mugging, and his facial expressions seem true to life and totally natural. Add to this the fact that he has a particular talent of making himself look like he honestly adores his leading lady, its no surprise we can feel the romance bubble. That he kept it up even when we could see that his character was annoyed or even angry with his love interest, really made the chemistry work for me in this movie. I know, there have been many who haven't agreed with me on this, but personally, I think they're mistaken. Those who have called the performances "wooden" or "stiff" were expecting performances which I would describe as "overboard". No, these performances were natural and human and unique to their (already complicated) characters. Just take a look at Brosnan's smile as he enjoys the music and dance in that Irish city, and you'll see real enjoyment there - nothing put on or fake or blow out of porportion. I prefer that any day of the week to some of the exaggerated and stereotyped performances we've seen over and over again in romantic comedies with typecast actors like, Hugh Grant, for instance. Enough already! Been there, done that. Give us something a bit more subtle for a change - and that's what we have here.

Now a good comedy cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the main actors. No, a good supporting cast of cameo roles is practically essential. Unfortunately, this is another area where this film doesn't come up to snuff. For instance, Michael Sheen and Parker Posey play the rock star Thorne Jamison and his fashion designer wife, Serena. Both of these actors have a wide and varied filmography but neither seem to get across to the audience that they're really comfortable in these roles. That's a shame since they could have easily have stolen the show, had they tried just a bit more to go for some nuances of their characters rather than just black and white cut-outs. Most of the rest of the cast were mostly forgettable, with two small exceptions.

The first is the very tiny part of the Priest/Michael. This was played perfectly by the thin, craggy faced David Kelly, best known for his role of Michael O'Sullivan in Waking Ned. This is one wonderful character actor and I understand he'll be playing Grandpa Jo in the new Johnny Depp version of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, and I couldn't think of anyone more perfectly suited to the part.

The other was the part of Audrey Woods' mother - the much married, famous beauty, Sara Miller - played to perfection by Frances Fisher. This name may not seem familiar to you, but when you see the face, you'll know you've seen it somewhere. This is simply because Fisher has had a long career as a character actress, after a speedy graduation from the American soap-opera day-time television scene. But to be more specific, you might have seen her in Titanic, playing the mother of Kate Winslet's character. Here she's given many less than perfect lines, but each one is delivered perfectly and garner far more than they're worth in laughs.

I really should comment on the direction of this movie, done by Peter Howitt. First, it is easy to see that his past directing attempts have been mixed, to say the least. He succeeded - up to a point - with his direction debut of Sliding Doors, but went on to direct one of the worst written thriller's I've ever seen - AntiTrust. I never saw his other film work, Johnny English, but I have heard that while it was fairly funny, it was nothing to write home about, and that at least he kept Atkinson from falling into his disgusting Mr. Bean act. Howitt succeeded in getting very good acting out of the stars here, as I already noted. He did the same with his players in both AntiTrust and Sliding Doors. By this, he has proven that he knows how to get the actors to portray what he's looking for, and that's certainly to his credit. Given this, I'm wondering if Mr. Howitt is simply having a problem with finding scripts that would truly show off his talent. Of the three out of four movies I've seen that he's directed, none of them are able to totally overcome some pretty sloppy script writing. Granted, Sliding Doors was by far the most original and clever of the bunch, but even in that movie there were quite a few cliches that one cringed at. So how does this compare with other movies by Howitt that I've seen? Sliding Doors is still better in general, but this comes in as a close second place.

By the way, those of you who are 'into' New York will be a bit disappointed that you won't see more of that city in this film. This didn't bother me, as I'm an ex-Chicagoan and therefore was born to hate New York. However, the views of Ireland really took my breath away – especially that castle – and I'm now aching to go back to visit that lovely island once again.

A quick word about the soundtrack - this was really very nice. There was all of the lovely Irish music, which I found charming, and never overpowering. Oh, and Danny Glover sings the opening song Maybe, which is lovely, and then there is the closing song Love at Last (from which I've stolen the title of this review), which you'll be humming for a few days after you've seen this film. That's a pretty good soundtrack, if you ask me, but it might not be memorable enough for me to want to buy the CD.

So what's my conclusion about this movie? I have to remind people that this was supposed to be a "feel good" movie, and not an Oscar winning artsy film. In this, it succeeded in making one leave the theatre with a smile, with the hope that true love can happen to anyone - even when they are trying to avoid it. The main characters made me believe their emotions and complexities from beginning to end. We got to see honest performances with good chemistry between the leads that we could truly believe could happen in real life - which shows that the director did know what he was doing. However, the script was badly flawed and this truly did detract quite a bit from this movie. In addition, the supporting cast wasn't all that it could have been. Therefore, despite the fact that I'm recommending people see this film, I'm afraid that I have to take some stars off of my rating here and only give it three.

Bottom line: this is the perfect movie to borrow from the DVD library when you want to cheer yourself up.

Thanks for reading!

Davida Chazan © June, 2004 - revised December, 2005

~~~~~
Technical Stuff:

The official web site for this film can be found at http://www.lawsofattractionmovie.com/

At the time of writing this review, this was not available on VHS in the UK and the DVD was priced at £4.97 on Amazon.co.uk, with used and new going for from £1.95 - sad, isn't it? Well, at least that's better than only 1p.
~~~~~

Summary: A fun film, despite a flawed plot, with lots of eye candy - both the actors and the scenery