Laws of Attraction (2004) User Reviews

Entertaining enough

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 20 January 2007]

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

Good, but it should have been better

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 11 July 2004]

You ever watch a movie that under normal circumstances you'd think was great and wonderful, but there is something about the movie that keeps you from fully enjoying it? It gets sort of stuck between being great and being good, so ends up in neither place, and you end up liking but not loving the movie. Ultimately the movie falls into abyss of "almost", and you very quickly forget it altogether.

Such is the curse of Laws of Attraction, a really good movie that's just sort of there. Half way into the movie I was wondering to myself why I wasn't connecting more with the movie since its funny, well acted, and very charming in all of the right ways. Somehow despite being able to see the quality I stopped caring what happened.

Can I recommend this romantic comedy about lawyers in love? Yes, its sweet and light and everything a good romantic comedy should be except memorable.

Rent it or wait for cable, but give it shot.

7 out of 10.

Forget the Movie, Watch the 'Deleted Scenes'

[Bob-45 · 6/10 · 7 December 2004]

I believe 'Laws of Attraction' is the only movie I've ever seen which I greatly preferred the 'alternate scenes and subplots' to what the producers chose to present. The plot involves way too little law. Most of the time when either Brosnan or Lewis winds, it's because of some piece of information the other lawyer should have known. The romance is weak, though not in the alternate scenes, especially those short ones which involves a former romance between Brosnan and the judge's sister.

Had 'Laws of Attraction' incorporated the alternate scenes and subplots, it would be deeper, grittier and funnier, well worthy of a '7'. However, as presented, 'Laws of Attraction' is good only for a weak '6', primarily due to the charms of Pierce Brosnan.

Screwball with snowballs

[jackie-107 · 22 October 2004]

Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Doris Day may have made better screwball comedies, but this one just about works, by downplaying punchlines and taking obvious idiocies as read, such as the leads' addictions to sweeties and their penchant for falling through doors or knocking things over. But with these traits, how is it their apartments are immaculate? A directorial faux-pas here.

Julianne Moore is wonderful as usual, playing the rather uptight divorce lawyer, impressed despite herself with Brosnan's physical attractions. She is a mistress of the personality contrasts: sweet smile against dagger-drawn eyes; disconcerted reactions with suave sophistication; professional aplomb in the courtroom, but slobbing out in front of the TV. She is not only determined to resist Brosnan but successfully compete against him, while her mother, brilliantly played by Frances Fisher, is determined to persuade her to accept his overtures. Frances Fisher almost steals the film with her over-the-top, much-married, society fashion character, distinctly contrasting with Julianne Moore's more stuffy persona (reminiscences of Edina and Saffy in Absolutely Fabulous?).

I cringed at the scenes in Ireland, but this film does not pretend to be anything other than a sweet-thing romantic comedy of deliberate game-playing. It doesn't go for stand-up jokes, but just bowls along happily in its overdose of sugar. Moore is marvelous in serious drama (The Hours and Far From Heaven) but is proving equally at home with zany comedy (see also Cookie's Fortune). Brosnan relies on his handsome looks to see him through any part, but his comedy timing is as excellent as Moore's. The characters' common clumsiness is as well-timed as anything Doris Day did in That Touch Of Mink, or Cary Grant in Monkey Business. Given that Brosnan and Moore are more often seen in adventure or drama, an outing into comedy does not go amiss and gives us a chance to see them do something different. I wasn't sure of the film to begin with, but it grew on me. As long as it is accepted as a light and frothy entertainment, with no other purpose than whiling away a Sunday afternoon in front of the fire with a box of chocolates, it's a fine movie. Does Frances Fisher ever play any other character than someone's mother?

Married to a fink

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 9 March 2005]

Peter Howitt's "Laws of Attraction" is an excuse to present two attractive actors in a light comedy that should have been much better than what one sees on the screen.

Julianne Moore is one of the great actresses working in the American cinema these days. She projects a luminous presence in everything she undertakes. In fact, this gorgeous woman is about the best thing in the film. Pierce Brosnan, on the other hand, plays the rogue lawyer with no scruples. He will do anything to undermine the woman he is supposed to be in love with.

Some of the minor characters were fun to watch in action. Frances Fisher, who could be Ms. Moore's older sister in real life, has been called to played her mother! Yes, by the magic of this inspired casting, Ms. Fisher is the mother that, having a great figure, and a nice personality, can still attract men, on her own terms. She resents being called "mother", and frankly, who can blame her? Parker Posey is excellent, as usual. Nora Dunn, as Judge Abramowitz, shows she should be seen more often.

While there are some funny moments, the film feels flat at times.

The cliché book has been put into action but for some reason I didn't mind

[DarthVoorhees · 7/10 · 6 June 2008]

I hate the formula and I find it annoying when movies following it are constantly being produced. Laws of Attraction follows the formula as if it is the bible. The jokes are stale, the plot has to be taken with a grain of salt and the side characters are unfunny but overally I still found that I had some mild liking to this film. I don't know what really came over me other than the fact that I found the romance of the film to have wit and a real sense of tenderness to it.

Pierce Brosnan and Juliane Moore play opposing divorce attorneys who bicker over every case. The audience and the characters themselves know for a fact that opposites all ways attract but the way these two come together works in and of it's self. Juliane Moore may say Pierce Brosnan's Daniel Rafferty is nothing more than a dirty brute but we as an audience can tell she has professional respect for him which separates this from normal films of this caliber. The battles in the divorce court are fiery and full of passion, passion we both know that these two want to put into their love life.

Moore's Audrey Woods is very cliché but I still found she had some life to her. Sure she eats junk food and secretly fears the ticking of her biological clock like every woman in this kind of comedy but she is different. She does not have the same reasons as some of the other women, dealing with divorce has made her develop a fear of falling in love. She is content with being alone but we can tell that she has considered seeking more. Her relationship with Rafferty is based on her trying to find his flaws to win a case and she finds him to be an admirable opponent. This admiration is mixed with jealousy and eventually love, she has trouble mixing the three emotions.

Brosnan's character is really what made me feel I had to give this film a mild recommendation. He is witty, smart and he truly is in love with Moore's character. His loudness and shrewd behavior aren't really a character trait of his, he plays with this perception with Audrey to put in a sense of fascination in her. The resolution of the plot is very satisfying in the sense that Audrey is not the one who directly settles it. Rafferty lets his feelings out in the highlight of this film saying he doesn't believe in divorce and that he would end his career for Woods. All though this plot point is somewhat tired I admired the sincerity Brosnan presented with it.

Sadly besides for our two lead characters the film is silly. We have a stupid Mother character who serves as the standard complainer about how her daughter will never be happy unless she finds a man. We spend a lot of time in the ol' Emerald Isle where a great deal of Irish stereotypes are presented as jokes. Frankly I was surprised Brosnan would do some of that material because my Irish blood couldn't find it funny in the least bit. The festival of shooting down Guiness and a scene where Brosnan is kissing one of the worst Irish stereotypes in film is meant to be sincere after a wedding ceremony and a touching score in the background.

Overall I found that I didn't mind being fed the old sap as much with Laws of Attraction and I really don't know why. 9 out of 10 times I would hate a film like this

Loads of talent do not a story make up for

[Chris_Docker · 5/10 · 10 May 2004]

It's great to see Julianne Moore in a comedy role again, reminding us of the not inconsiderable range of her talents. Laws of Attraction is a rather well-worn comedy though that lacks sparkle. Two top divorce layers battle it out and eventually get romantic about each other. If the script sizzled it might be able to hold a candle, but it doesn't - which is a great shame given the great performances (Pierce Brosnan also does well, appearing far less wooden than in his James Bond roles). The whole film has a rather contrived feel to it that no amount of acting talent can salvage. Throwing in a bit of Irish countryside seems gratuitous in the extreme, a bit of cutesiness for the American box-office.

Charming and Delightful

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 3 February 2006]

In New York, the efficient, insecure and single divorce lawyer Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) faces the charming, unethical but also efficient divorce lawyer Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) in a litigation case. On the evening before the trial, they date and drink a lot, they have one night stand, and she loses her first case in court when Daniel uses information disclosed by Audrey in their meeting in the previous night. She becomes upset with him and their competition increases, until the rock star Thorne Jamison (Michael Sheen) and his wife Serena (Parker Posey) hire Audrey and Daniel respectively in the millionaire divorce case. They have to go to Ireland, where they get married after a drinking night. When they wake up in the next morning, they have to face the new reality of husband and wife.

"Laws of Attraction" is a charming and delightful romantic comedy, mostly supported by the gorgeous and sweet Julianne Moore, and the handsome and charming Pierce Brosnan. Their chemistry is perfect, and the situations, mostly caused by the character of Daniel Rafferty, are many times hilarious. Daniel is an unethical lawyer that uses any resource to win a battle, no matter how dirty he is. And Julianne Moore is also great in the role of an ethical lawyer that follows the rules. There is one very silly and unnecessary scene, when Audrey visits Daniel's office for the first time, but it does not spoil the film. Parker Posey is also great in the role of Serena. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Leis da Atração" ("Laws of the Attraction")

Flaws of attraction

[paulnewman2001 · 2/10 · 21 September 2004]

One of those tedious, contrived star vehicles which thinks it's taking a rather witty and hilarious look at the timeless battle of the sexes. Instead, it simply takes stereotype rogue A (Pierce Brosnan, disheveled and charming), stereotype career woman B (Julianne Moore, neurotic and uptight), throws them together as opposites who'll inevitably attract in stereotype situation C (they're New York's best divorce lawyers on opposite ends of the same cases) and adds a perky sheen of class with stereotype soundtrack D (it's New York, it's quirky so it's got to be cod-Gershwin, right?). With so much friction, it's only a matter of time until the film finds a reason to dump them in a movie Oirland of quaint rustic types and interminably warbling uillean pipes where they get drunk and marry by accident so Moore can spend the rest of the film rushing about and shrieking. It's only 87 minutes but Laws Of Attraction is still quite a grind to get through and offers only Brosnan's engaging manner to get you through. As for Moore, five minutes of her egregious rom-com gurning will have you wishing someone had dropped her in the freshly chummed studio shark tank.

2nd time

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 12 May 2007]

The movie wasn't that appealing to me the first time around ... but at the second viewing, I liked it more. It's a fast paced, dialog heavy and funny movie. It has it's weak points, but the humor and the good chemistry (between Brosnan and Moore).

What almost brings it down (apart from the flaws in the script/story) is that it's too long. It also starts fast but slows down, after a "climax" scene between the two leads. The subplot with Michael Sheen and Parker Posey is overblown too (although it does have it's right to be there, for metaphorical reasons). If you can overlook those failings than you will be able to enjoy this romantic comedy! :o)

Well that spoiled it for me.

[film-critic · 1/10 · 8 February 2005]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ … sorry, I feel like I could doze off right now and we haven't even made it to the meat of the review. That should give you a quick idea of what I thought of this film. This film was blander than the sugar-free bread we eat at this house. There was no suspenseful moments, there was absolutely nothing to laugh about (other than the sheer stupidity of this film), and the chemistry was horrible. How does a director expect us to sit through an hour and a half of this without hiring two actors that actually seem like they enjoy being together, or that they would realistically meet in real life. I never once imagined Moore and Bronson as a couple, and unfortunately, this film did not strengthen my imagination.

So, where did this film go wrong? To start with the characters would mean having to talk about Moore and her inability to be funny. She is not a comic actress. She commands the screen in her dramatic roles, but brings nothing to her humorous side. There was a moment during the film when I thought I could see her "humor" on/off button. It was hard to distinguish between Moore the actress and Moore the dehumanized robot that attempted to provide humor to this dry piece of crust I like to call Laws of Attraction. It was pathetic, and at times "silly". It was not helped by the fact that Brosnan didn't even bother putting any effort into his role. I think that is what bothered me the most about the characters, they were not complex (though they tried to be), they were not entertaining, and they were not challenges on the actors part to portray. I enjoy a film so much better when actors go beyond their normal stroke of acting ability and provide something of substance and intrigue. The only aspect of this film that I was intrigued about was the ending credits.

How many times have we seen this story? For those that argue that Hollywood brings us unique and crisp stories with each production should see this film. This film felt like a cinematic representation of an Alley McBeal episode. There was even the scene with the unisex bathroom … did nobody see this connection? There was nothing special about this film. Normally, when I write these reviews I have at least one positive note to bring to the table, but with this film, there was nothing. From beginning to end, this film was horrible. The director must have known that it was an overplayed story because he literally rushed through this story. It reminded me of a child's first time with a woman, rushed and fumbled they try to make it to the end, but never really succeed in satisfying anyone. I hated and cringed every time Woods' mother was on screen. Her parts were underdeveloped, dull, and unnecessary to the story of the film. She was filler, nothing more. I kept looking for something, anything that I could bite down on and taste the flavor of this film, but all I seemed to find was gristle and fat (a meat joke for those carnivores out there).

Overall, there was nothing redeeming of this film at all, and I can now fully understand why it rushed directly to the silver screen and even faster to the video release. I can now fully understand why there were so many copies for me to choose from at the store. I guess others discovered the truth about Laws of Attraction, and why the box oddly smelled like curdled cheese.

Grade: * out of *****

For those who appreciate Romantic Comedies, this one is spot on!

[twilight2000 · 9/10 · 27 November 2005]

(Very Mild Spoilers)

I grew up watching this style of movie at it's very best -- Tracy & Hepburn, so I went into this with a very skeptical nature in spite of appreciating Pierce Brosnan's work in general. Romantic Comedy, done well, is predictable only in it's broadest strokes. To be really interesting and re-watchable it requires that at least some of the predictabilities have twists without ruining the eventual outcome.

Not only was this one of the most enjoyable of it's genre I've watched, Brosnan, Moore and Fischer were *wonderful* in their portrayals of their characters. Fischer couldn't have been more fun or spot on in her portrayal of Mom. Brosnan and Moore not only clearly had fun making this, they also managed Romantic Comedy quite well. For those who cut their teeth on Adam's Rib or Philidelphia, this one is a beautiful homage to its predecessors. Finding out that Brosnan was a fan of Tracy/Hepburn films after the fact wasn't surprising at all.

I wasn't as amused by the 2 rockers as some -- they seemed, at times, forced. Their characters were not as integrated to the film's style as the leads, so felt a little odd to me. Good film, well done for it's type.

If you don't like Romantic Comedy, don't go here -- this one is perfectly what it is!

likable stars, predictable plot

[Buddy-51 · 6/10 · 30 June 2005]

Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore go the Tracy-Hepburn route in "Laws of Attraction," a romantic comedy that, unlike the films of that earlier pair, rarely rises to the level of its two notable stars. Brosnan and Moore play opposing attorneys who find themselves in an intense love/hate relationship both in the courtroom and out in the real world. Moore is one of New York's most successful divorce lawyers whose on-the-job experiences with estranged couples has pretty much turned her off of marriage completely, while Brosnan is a divorce attorney, who, though ruthless in court, has managed to retain his faith in marriage as an institution. The couple bicker, squabble and wrangle over issues both personal and professional - all the while falling madly in love with each other.

Though bright and humorous at times, "Laws of Attraction" can't overcome the trite predictability of its storyline or the stereotypical nature of its characters. Brosnan and Moore are both attractive and energetic performers, but the screenplay lacks the kind of madcap sophistication that was the defining trait of those films of the '40's that this movie wants so desperately to emulate. It is indeed encouraging for those of us in the over-40 crowd to see two such seasoned players starring in a romantic comedy, but too often they are asked to behave in ways that are not so very different from the teeny-bopper or even twenty-something characters we find in most films of this type nowadays.

There should be laws against this garbage

[skymovies · 1/10 · 11 October 2004]

What a novel idea - a 'romantic comedy' that's neither romantic nor funny. Pierce Brosnan clearly took no chances to make this concept work, using his own production company to pull together just the right combination of talent. The director had to have a proven track record in disregarding punchlines, pacing and cohesion - step forward the man who gave the world Sliding Doors and Johnny English. Likewise, the script should take a worn-out, opposites-attract scenario, ditch the snappy for the sappy, and throw in some Oirish blarney because, bejesus, there's no charm to be found elsewhere in proceedings.

But to make the whole thing really stink, there had to be absolutely no chemistry between the leads. Step forward Julianne Moore, a remarkable dramatic actor with an even more remarkable ineptitude for comedy (see Nine Months and Evolution for details). Not that the works needed gumming up any more - the writers and director conspire to make it the longest 90 minutes of the year - but any sparkle there may once have been is dulled by the doughy-faced combination of Brosnan and Moore. It's like watching your parents on a date.

Laugh-free, shoddily made and criminally boring - the VCR is going to whiff for a while.

Enjoyable, romantic comedy for people in love

[jamesjim200 · 28 July 2004]

I first saw this film through work at the cinema ( I work in care ). I enjoyed it so much I took my wife to see it to the next night and she enjoyed it to. This is a movie for people who are in love and or thinking about getting married or are married. Despite the humour their is a serious message ie not everything in life is easy and you need to be willing to compromise if you wish to find happiness with the one you love. Not all reviews of this film have been positive. My belief is these critics are not romantic people. This is a very hard film to dislike if you are a romantic person, my wife says I am. I look forward to buying it on DVD I recommend you do the same.

It was cute.

[anniehutch · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

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.

What do you have against Tuesday?

[raulfaust · 7/10 · 10 February 2011]

Yay, "Laws of Attraction" is a good movie, despite having many romantic clichés and not being funny.

The way the lawyers were portrayed here was very realistic and Julianne Moore gives a perfect acting.

I was about to rate this movie very high, but after Rafferty's statement about the four million check, the movie died for me. It was the most unethical a counselor could have done, it disgusted me as a law student. And it disgusted even more that Audrey forgave this and got back with him.

Also, the marriage thing looked very amateur to me. If their wedding in Ireland was just in church, how would the American media (and justice) consider them "legally bound" if they didn't sign any contract at all?

But over all, the movie is quite interesting and worth a watch ;)

Typical Hollywood garbage

[giflarosa-1 · 1/10 · 22 August 2004]

Female divorce lawyer is a good-looking, career-driven neurotic. Only endearing trait is propensity to privately and sneakily consume salty snacks and Little Debbie-like baked goods. Check that - this trait WOULD be endearing if it weren't: a)so obviously meant, as a plot device, to BE endearing; and, b)fingernails-on-blackboard annoyingly overplayed by Julienne Moore.

Female divorce lawyer meets opposing male lawyer who appears to be a disorganized slob. Disorganized slob turns out to be sharp attorney who immediately sees through her tough-woman facade, wins her grudging respect, and is also very good-looking. Despite being SO DIFFERENT, they fall in love. What a surprise.

Damn - is there really an audience for this... swill, crap, detritus, offal? - I mean, words fail me. I saw it on an airplane (talk about a captive audience) and cannot imagine anyone actually paying to see this. Horrifying.

Oh dear God - please save me from seeing any more total failures of imagination like this movie.

Oh come on,

[fixxxer537 · 6/10 · 2 August 2021]

It's not that bad! It's cute, it's funny, Michael Sheen is hilarious, Julianne Moore is beautiful, Pierce Brosnan is dashing and it was quite enjoyable! If you're in the mood for a light rom com I don't think you'd be disappointed.

This is a Romantic Comedy???????????

[lavatch · 4/10 · 12 March 2005]

Whatever happened to the classic romantic comedies of yore with characters who have names like Holly Golightly? "Laws of Attraction" has to be one of the oddest romantic comedies ever churned out by the mills of Hollywood. The film's premise is that in the course of their high-profile cases as adversaries, two hardboiled divorce attorneys fall in love! But the courtroom scenes are unpleasant, and the two leads (Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore) both seem uncomfortable in their roles. (Burt Reynolds and Diane Keaton might have provided more chemistry and more laughs.) Another curious casting choice was Frances Fisher playing Julianne Moore's mother. In their scenes together, they looked like sisters, not mother-and-daughter. But the main problem of this film was the strained effort to parlay the courtroom divorce scenes into a payoff of romantic comedy. The writers and producers of this film should have taken a look at our culture and seen that divorce is not a fruitful ground for romance, and it is not a laughing matter.

Breaks no new ground but what's not to like?

[=G= · 6/10 · 30 March 2005]

"Laws of Attraction" is a predictable, formulaic romantic comedy which pits Brosnan and Moore against each other as top divorce attorneys of very opposite dispositions and personalities both in the courtroom and out. What the film sets out to do is show how the law of attraction which states that opposites attract will bring this middle-aged couple together romantically. Although this film was slammed by the critics and received only a lukewarm reception by the public it is a busy enough little button-pusher to make it a worthwhile watch for those who are fans of the principles and the romcom genre. Keep expectations real. Now on broadcast with CCs. (C+)

Boring

[afenner1 · 1/10 · 2 May 2004]

Four of us went to see this movie and none of us was overjoyed with it. If it were on TV we would have changed the channel after about 15 or 20 minutes. I even fell asleep during it. It sure wasn't a comedy. Cute but boring. I would pass up this one. There weren't over twenty people in the theater to watch this picture and I would be surprised to see this picture on the upper list on ratings as time goes on and people have a chance to talk about it. As with most all movies, the previews of this one kind of give you the sense that it may be funny and very interesting to watch. I think the best parts of the movie were the previews. I would suggest saving your time on this one and see something else.

007 meets (and shags) Sex in the City

[shiningmonk · 8/10 · 8 January 2005]

OK, the heading was to grab your attention. Sarah Jessica Parker and her sex-mad cronies aren't (thankfully!) in this, but Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore are.

Every now and then, they make a lightweight comedy romance with English actor Hugh Grant, and someone like Jennifer Lopez or Sandra Bullock, and it falls apart because Grant can't act. Well, this one boldly casts Irish-born Bond actor Brosnan with stage-actress Moore.

It's not a "wet hanky" romance (as some reviewers were evidently expecting) but a tale of one-upmanship between two rival lawyers in Manhattan, both immediately likable characters, with romance, spy cameras and Irish dancing thrown in. Thank God there are no nasal Manhattan accents, people talking really fast about how much money they've made, women discussing sex in coffee houses, people whistling for taxis, scenes of the Statue of Liberty or Frank Sinatra music.

All in all, well worth renting.

A movie to be savoured like milk chocolate

[jmbwithcats · 6/10 · 12 May 2004]

As soon as i heard the line in laws of attraction " Good news, opposing counsel is insane." I knew I would enjoy this film. Both witty and cute, the cast has fun with this one, and it's contagious! In a word, the film is adorable, light hearted, and fun.

The fact that this movie can even be in the same spotlight as Adam's Rib is a good thing, as it leads us to stay in a circle of great films that should never be forgotten.

What I remembered most from Adam's Rib was the cute banter, chemistry, and incontrovertibly adorable and touching story. This movie has all those elements.

"When you love someone you should be unselfish enough to give them whatever they want."

Such a bittersweet reminder of how to get there from here, when all roads are closed, and the sun is behind the clouds... the movie has it's ups and downs, and the simple intricacy of the movie is swept up nicely by the genius of it's actors, without which the subtle would appear flat, the wit would be contrived and the dance, would simply fail to get off the ground.

The only thing that didn't seem to work for me was how much of a insecure and juvenile school girl mentality Moore had when it came to love relationships and matters of the heart. And yet, redeems itself thru the specialness of all the subtle parts of the film, bringing a sense of natural nurturing to the relationship of the lawyers.

A movie to be enjoyed and not over analyzed, but savoured like milk chocolate. I enjoyed Laws of Attraction and hope you do too.

One of the WORST films I have ever seen!

[saberlee44 · 1/10 · 12 June 2006]

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)