It’s exciting to see Shyamalan on such confident footing once more, all these years later.
Opposites attract, it's true, but the problem with the two divorce lawyers in "Laws of Attraction" is that they're not opposites. They're perfectly well suited to each other, recognize that almost immediately, and tumble into bed at least half an hour, maybe an hour, before that's permitted by the movie's formula. Then they annoy us by trying to deny the attraction while the plot spins its wheels, pretending to be about something.
The two attractive people are Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan) and Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore). Neither one has ever lost a case. Both are, somewhat oddly, still single despite being awesomely attractive. Maybe it's because of all the divorces they see. Audrey blames it on being the plain daughter of a raving beauty (Frances Fisher), but, I don't know about you, I can't picture Julianne Moore as plain. As for Pierce Brosnan, anyone who thinks he needs to be replaced as James Bond is starkers.
As we all know, the formula for this kind of movie requires the two protagonists to hate each other at first sight. Only gradually do they discover they're in love. I recommend "Two Weeks Notice" (2002), with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant, as a superior example of the formula. But in "Laws of Attraction," Brosnan is always more or less in love with Moore, usually more, and so the movie has to resort to wheezy devices to be about anything at all.
It gives him offices, for example, above a grocery in Chinatown. Why? Because Chinatown is a colorful location, although an undefeated divorce lawyer could afford uptown rents. I am reminded of "What A Girl Wants" (2003), in which Amanda Bynes and her mother Kelly Preston live in an apartment in Chinatown, again without a single Chinese person saying one word in the movie, simply because you get the colorful location for free.