A
‘Law’ should be made against fluffy, outdated
romantic comedies like this
Sean Hennen / Reviewer
In the heyday of the Hollywood romantic comedy, during which
the likes of Audrey Hepburn and Spencer Tracy still graced
the silver screen, a movie like “Laws of
Attraction” would have been light, fun and intelligent
all at the same time without ever letting the effort show.
The script would have been just airy enough but still overtly
focused on story during which scenes of sexual tension and
playful banter would have been pulled off with a clever,
winking nod to the goofiness of it all.
The problem with the Hollywood of today is that when putting
together a movie like “Laws of Attraction,”
filmmakers feel the need to make it all so serious,
completely losing sight of what made early movies terrific.
Such aptly coined “date movies” are no longer
concerned with the thrill of a budding relation or the
genuine spark of a relationship.
Modern romantic comedies are too focused on sexual politics
and gender-power struggles, never giving the leads enough
breathing room to enjoy themselves and the pleasure of the
other’s company.
Because neither gender can seem too submissive or too
over-bearing, the thrill of the “chase” is
completely muddled up in figuring out who is pursuing and who
is being pursued.
Any ease in which romantic comedies flowed back in the golden
age of cinema has been filed away and replaced by stilted,
stiff scripts and actors who approach their on-screen love
interests with painful-to-watch awkwardness.
That brief sum-up of the dichotomy between old and new views
on romance in Tinseltown is necessary when understanding that
“Laws of Attraction” is meant as a throw back to
an era gone by.
Much like 2003’s disastrous “Down with
Love” which also tried to match the sassy wit and
bubbly fun of old time romances, “Laws”
can’t seem to find a solid middle ground between
today’s social agenda and the simplicity of yesterday.
The plot follows the story of two New York divorce attorneys,
Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) and Audrey Woods (Julianne
Moore), who are constantly competing against each other both
in the courtroom and out.
Of course they are destined to fall in love as all characters
this opposed to each other are, and when a night of heavy
drinking leaves them inapplicably married, hilarity ensues.
The fact that “Laws” feels stale and trivial is
really a shame, because both Brosnan and Moore do an
excellent job. They seem to be the only people involved in
this movie who are channeling the feel of Tracy and Hepburn.
Brosnan gets to stretch his legs a little, throwing off the
constricting James Bond persona, and Moore, for once not
playing a tragic heroine, gets to show off her gift for
comedy.
The appeal of these classy leads is right on key, hitting all
the parry-and-joust banter notes perfectly and creating a
fun, flirty tone over the whole movie that makes each of them
smart and charming in their own regard.
It helps in a movie such as this that the two leads are
likeable and zany enough to never be boring onscreen.
The only problem with “Laws of
Attraction’s” attempt to match the silly
entertainment of older movies is that it doesn’t come
off as silly; it comes off as stupid and inane.
It doesn’t help that the wooden script by Aline Brosh
McKenna and Robert Harling never gives its chief characters
enough material to work with, and the heavy-handed direction
from Peter Howitt never leaves the ground.
Or maybe it’s just that 21st century audiences are too
weary and cynical for a 1940s style romance. They would
rather see an aggressive rapport between their leads than the
smoothly engaging one that can be found between Brosnan and
Moore.
A fluffy romance like this one is destined to go extinct,
operating as an outdated, unimaginative piece of pop culture
banality.
| 
