Big names and big ideas do not make the movie

Disclaimer: Rules of Attraction is not your average teenybopper flick, and

if you go into the movie looking for many drawn out, emotional moments scored by

Paula Cole or Edwin McCain, you will have no idea what is going on. In fact, this is not

a teenybopper flick at all.

Rules of Attraction stars James Van Der Beek, Ian Somerhalder, Shannyn

Sossamon, and Tufts' very own Jessica Biel. The movie takes place at a fictional liberal

arts college and is essentially about the startling teenage angst that defines our generation

(Who would have thought?). "Nobody will know anybody... ever" seems to be the

underlying theme here, repeated frequently throughout the film. After being shocked,

seduced, and sickened at the end of the film, you are left with a feeling of emptiness and

confusion, asking yourself "So, what's the point?"

Your guess is as good as mine. This film somehow succeeds at alienating almost

every type of moviegoer. If you are a Dawson's Creek fan, you'll be disappointed with

Van Der Beek's role as Satan (although not so explicitly stated) in the movie. That's

right _ the WB's sensitive, contemplative teenage heartthrob is a drug dealer, an alleged

rapist, but worst of all just a big jerk.

We follow him throughout the movie as he screws over (quite literally) many of

his so-called friends. But no matter how hard Van Der Beek tries, he'll never be that

tough, godless rebel which he so clearly yearns to be. Too much screen time was wasted

with close-ups of the actor with a hard-knock grin on his face, staring into oblivion.

The WB also, in fact, donated another one of its young, admirable stars: 7th

Heaven's Biel. Fans of show (if they exist at an intelligent university like Tufts) will be disappointed with Biel's role as a prostitute (again, it's not explicitly stated); in the opening sequence she "got drunk and did the entire football team."

If you're not alienated yet, then Fred Savage's cameo as a theory-mumbling heroin addict ought to do it. That's right, my friends, this is the end of the innocence. What happened to America's adolescent role models? Next thing you know, Steve Urkel will start doing softcore pornography. It all dates back to when Elizabeth Berkley (Saved By the Bell) had to go and star in the trashy classic Show Girls.

So it goes.

If you can't stand visceral depictions of sex, drugs, homosexuality, and

death, then you do not want to see this movie. In fact, Rules of Attraction

boasts ten on-screen orgasms, two gay kisses, 20 female nipple shots, 24 instances of drug use, six suicide attempts, and one choreographed bed-dance to a George Michael song (which is sadly the high point of the film).

I wish I could say that this movie is in no way, shape, or form, accurate, but that would make me almost as stupid as Biel's character when she says: "If a condom is 98 percent accurate, then, if he wears two, it'll be 196 percent accurate!"

If this movie bears any artistic merit at all, it lies in the sometimes odd, puke-stained camera angles, and also in the incredibly novel idea of having the plot run backwards (Memento, anyone?). The movie can also be seen as a no-holds-barred expose of reckless teenage behavior. According to Rules' director/writer Roger Avery, the film apparently "begins when you leave the theater," and is basically a "condemnation" of teenage recklessness.

Rules of Attraction is "a fairly accurate social satire about everything that was

going on around me" in college, said Avery at a telephone press conference sponsored by Lion's Gate Entertainment. Given that, the movie's artistic merit could lie in the accuracy of the film. Avery did in fact accomplish this; however, an accurate portrayal of teenage angst is hardly a new idea _ in fact, it is one of the most hackneyed of all.

The characters in this movie are extremely two-dimensional, and, worst of all, none of them gain any new understanding of their worlds. There is never any sign of redemption or conclusion to any conflict. The one subplot that involves Van Der Beek's secret crush committing suicide has potential to reach at least some conclusion; however, he never learns who this character actually is and that his malice caused her to kill herself. Avery's reason for choosing not to enlighten Van Der Beek of the suicide was that he wanted to portray a certain "anti-romanticism," and thus keep the girl's suicide completely meaningless." And meaningless it was.

But if Avery thinks that portraying many intertwined instances of meaninglessness will give his movie some meaning, he is greatly mistaken. Rules of Attraction resonates like a bad Nirvana cover band _ too much distortion, no substance holding it together, and just a bunch of wasted angst.

In the end there really is no plot _ just a cadre of self-tortured, ignorant college students in no specific plot structure, and a truck load of pseudo-poetic meaning and masturbatory monologues to which the director desperately tries to add depth. As the screenwriter comes in to try to insert some meaning into the movie with snow dramatically blankets the college campus, you can literally feel the movie falling apart at the seams. This is a dark, perverse film with serious societal undertones _ not so much the ones intended by director Roger Avery, but more in the fact that the movie was never produced for mass media in the first place. It is essentially a combination of Dawson's Creek, Memento, Animal House, and Debbie Does Dallas. It lacks appeal, making it one of the biggest money-wasters in theaters this fall.