Reviews (143)

The most original and creative film of 2002
This year's most original and creative movies, The Rules Of Attraction, in a certain sense, "rules" A must see for anyone in college, for thats the basis of the film. The movie follows three main characters, Sean Bateman, (the brother of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman), Paul, and Lauren. Sean is a drug dealer who is recieving love letters from a woman throughout the movie, and runs into many different sexual and drug related situations. Paul is bisexual, (although men is what he's mostly looking for), hes gotta crush on Sean, but Sean will only smoke w/ him, he has no interest in him sexually. Lauren, whos still a virgin and whos boyfriend has been in Europe for quite a while, decides maybe she should pursue other men, one of those men being Sean.
The film has a very creative style in inrtoducing its main characters, the first segment, which is really the end of the film, follows each one during a party, one at a time, then reverses literally to follow the next character, its really quite amazing, and probably a lot less confusing watching it than reading it. Go see it, its more than a movie, its an experience.

Attractive Rules
Cult director Roger Avary ("Killing Zoe") adapts the material from one of Brett Easton Ellis` books and provides an enticing and addictive cinematic experience in "The Rules of Attraction".
The movie focuses on 3 college kids who are emotionally hurt and the only way to deal with the situation is spending their time around drugs, sex, parties and little else. The directing is edgy and stylish enough, pherhaps even a bit too hip for it`s own good, but excellent nonetheless. There are a lot of jump/ reverse moments in the narrative to make it interesting, as well as multiple story perspectives, split screens and an unique, cretive way of connecting sound and image (the soundtrack is just great and sets the mood properly). At times, it recalls some "Trainspotting" or "Pulp Fiction" moments (Avary co-wrote the latter, by the way).
Sean (played by James Van Der Beek) is a character one love`s to hate, a selfish, crude and arrogant guy who eventually gets a hold on himself as he becomes more and more interested in Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon), a smart, late virgin who is expecting for her boyfriend to return from a trip to Europe. Paul (Ian Somerhalder) is a bisexual guy who recently dated Lauren and starts caring deeply about Sean, who rejects him. So, we have a circular plot who`s simple in a way but is told in a refreshing manner, so it never becomes tiresome. Sure, there are some apparently meaningless scenes but as a whole they make sense and help to develop the characters, who are more than what they first seem (although we never get to know them properly, since "no one knows anyone").
The movie offers an interesting look at a part of college experience, showing a darker, cynical and bitter side of teenagers and young adults that isn`t seen in the most common, dumbed down and predictable teen flicks out there. This mixes heavy dark comedy with sad moments of loneliness, despair and alienation. There`s sex, drugs and rock n`roll, but it isn`t really a case of style over substance. Sure, it has style and is visually compelling, but it`s also meaningful and though-provoking, especially in the poetic, gothic-like moments of the third act. One of the best teen movies of the last years, alongside "Ghost World" and "Donnie Darko".

even better than the book
this movie was awesome it did a great job of showing the characters emotion and expressing what college life (even if it is a pretty wild version) is really like. This movie does a great job of showing the same event through other people's point of view finally a movie that understands that life has more than one point of view

What was the point?
After watching this film, I wondered "what was the most obnoxious part of this movie"? Was it at the drug dealer's house? Was it the gay guys' dinner with their mothers? Or maybe it was the overly long and inflated "whirlwind" tour of Europe through the eyes of, perhaps, the most despicable person in this film?

All of these characters are deplorable and shallow. One reviewer said they felt sorry for the girl who was sending the purple letters! Why? She does herself in for a guy that she doesn't even know and has made no attempt to talk to!! Following their lives leaves the viewer feeling empty. They are all emotionally and ethically bankrupt. Why should we care about these characters? What is the point here?!

It is truly sad that Brett Easton Ellis has gotten rich writing pathetic drivel such as this. He has truly hoodwinked a lot of people who are easily shocked. Richard Avary and Ellis is a good combo though-- because both are masters at creating exploitative, sensationalist garbage with no heart.

2 stars for the acting only.

They should have never made this awful film.
Directed by Roger Avary ''The Rules of Attraction'' is one of the worst movies of 2002 and there have been a couple.

The movie stars James Van Der Beek from ''Dawson's Creek'' as Sean Bateman, a drug dealing slanking student who basically by his own words is a ''social vampire'' someone who leeches of others, and sinks his fangs to those naive and weak enough around him. The best example is near the beginning where Sean is telling us through a couple of brief flashbacks about the pathetic situations he has been involved in. He then seeks to forgot about his problems like some individuals by consuming himself with alcohol and then finding a cheap girl to sleep with. His prayers get answered when he meets a young blonde who is obviously a little drunk as well. Anyhow fast forward 5 minutes and then we are introduced to a whole slew of pathetic characters. There is the homosexual character of Paul (Ian Somerhalder) who basically likes to sleep with any boys around him. I doubt think gays would have liked this character either. I have seen in many films vile heterosexual characters but dare I say it, Paul is the first vile homosexual character Ive seen in film (another good reason that the movie shouldn't have been made let alone a novel)

Supposedly this horrible movie was taken from a novel by Bret Easton Ellis and I could only shudder to think how bad the book is if the movie of this calibur is taken from a novel. In fact looking at another site it doesn't quite know how to qualify the movie. It has the movie itself listed as a Comedy/Drama/Romance/Thriller? lol

Back to the movie, we see a couple of the stupid situations Mr. Bateman is in. Apparently he has a drug pimp (some weak little 17 yr old white boy) who think he is a big shot because he carries a gun. Anyhow, this pimp wants money from Sean (apparently they have some sort of partnership going where this guy gets his own cut of the drug money). Sean can't pay the money but he comes with a way to get it by swindling a couple of rich preppies who want to get high....lol

Then there comes this sick twist in the film, Paul sexually loves Sean and Sean is interested in this girl Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) supposedly because she is pure and sweet (which is not what I heard in the novel).
Anyhow, Sean Bateman well to put in a blunt is real nilist, he likes to turn everything into crap plain and simple. The movie itself takes one direction (to sicken us with one hideous character after the next and shows their selfish stupid actions)
and pretty does until the very end. Speaking of which, the ending itself is written on the wall halfway, it's not surprising, it's a sad ending to a sad vile film.

''The Rules of Attraction'' also has done nothing for the cast either, James Beek hasn't done a movie in 2 yrs and none of the other actors except maybe Kate Bosworth who has a short role as Kelly (friend of Lauren) has gone anywhere.

The only good thing that I think comes from watching such a stupid movie as this, is that it shows that even in 2002 American directors still seek to make incredibly bad movies hoping that audiences will dig them, they won't and I didn't dig this movie at all.

Another horrible movie with James Van Der Beek which started a couple of years ago with his weak movie ''Varsity Blues''.

I did get the blues watching this movie (pun intended). Van Der Beek is just not a good actor at all, all he has is good looks but not much acting depth. So stay away from this movie. Dont fork any money into buying it, but if you still want to see how bad it is rent it. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Has flaws, but I love it anyway
I'm giving this film 5 stars despite some small things some folks would consider flaws in the film. I am still giving it 5 stars because it happens to be a film I keep watching over and over again, and I never get tired of a single scene in the whole flick.
Jean-Hughes Anglade and Eric Stoltz are perfect together as old childhood friends out to rob a Federal bank in France on Bastille Day.
Here are the reasons why I love this movie. It really has a lot packed into it. It has a ton of humor, though much of it is dark humor. The extended drug use scene and tour of Paris must be about as close as you can come to honestly portraying being high on film. The pace of the action never slows down, and each scene consistently draws me in. There are a whole bunch of little original ideas and surprises thrown in that makes the film always interesting.
Memorable moments: the dead cat in the hallway, "riding the dragon", the monkey and Billie Holiday, viking films, Ron Jeremy, the ex-con joke, Eric pondering the next move.....
If you like anything by Tarantino, then you owe it to yourself to check this out. Honestly, I come back to watch this far more often than I do anything by QT.

Better than Reservoir Dogs
Roger Avary is the true talent behind Quentin Tarantino (at least according to NBK producer Jane Hamsher) and his first solo job is impressive, if a bit slow. The main heist doesn't really get going until the halfway point. But it's really a character study, anyway.

Zed (Eric Stoltz) is called by Parisian buddy Eric (Jean-Hugues Anglade) to help him break into a reserve bank vault on Bastille Day, one of the few banks open on that day.

Zed falls for a student/escort supplied to him through a cab driver, takes several recreational drugs with Eric and his friends (including Spandau Ballet's Gary Kemp), and wakes up the next morning, not quite ready for the job. The job keeps Zed downstairs surrounded by the noise of the drill, so he never notices that things go very wrong.

And who happens to have a part-time job at the bank?

Avary is quoted as saying that producer Lawrence Bender (Pulp Fiction) called him up and said he had a bank set free for a few weeks, did he have a script involving a bank he wanted to film? Avary said yes, he did. Then he wrote one...this.

Comparisons to Reservoir Dogs are inescapable (even on the video box), but the two films are very different, although similarly dark in tone. I think this one is actually better.

I wish I was Zoe!
I wish I was Zoe so that someone would have killed me before I started watching this drivel.
This film was reccomended to me and all I can say is I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.
Quentin Tarantino and Lawrence Bender produced this. I must admit, I find that very hard to believe. Not because of the slow pace, crappy story and characters (Although that is surprisng for those two) but it's the incredible lack of money that surprised me most of all. Don't get me wrong on this, I don't care if a film is made on pennies. BUT IT HAS TO BE GOOD.
Robert Rodrigiez made El Mariachi on seven thousand dollars. This looks like it was made on seven cents.
I personally think that this film was no more than one of Tarantino's old Video archives buddies asking for a bit of money to make a film. Tarantino being the nice guy that he supposedly is, not to mention a film addict, was curious to see what his friend would produce. Now it went one of two ways.
Either Tarantino and Bender gave him the money and left him to do the whole thing on his own without any tip offs, or the guy just kept all the money, went to the local supermarket to pick up a crappy video camera (cos that's what it looks like) and shot the film without a care in the world eagerly awaiting the rap party.
Anyway I f you find all this hard to believe (Just like I did) then get hold of this and find out yourself. But make sure you do yourself a favour and when you start to get incredibly bored, turn the film off. Take my advice, It doesn't get any better.

I would be surprised if Lawrence Bender and Quentin Tarantino didn't agree with me!

craziness
You guys are nuts. Killing Zoe may not be the bank robbery film that Heat is, but it has many more aspects to it, namely gratuitous sex, drugs, and violence. Yes, the bathroom scene is a little much, and the movie is unrealistic. But if you're going to movies to experience realism, what's the point? Just walk outside. Killing Zoe is a perfect distraction for any of you out there who, like me, are to entrenched in reality to fly to Europe and take heroin for the first time the night before a bank robbery you didn't plan for at all. I'm personally insulted by the stupidity that would be necessary to call this movie predictable, simply because I didn't anticipate it was possible for such a level of it to exist and I hate it when I realize that dumb people still have the capability of suprising me. This movie is a classic.

Killing The Audience
Predictable from the first 5 minutes into the movie. Overdone plot about a robbery gone wrong and the safe-cracker hero who has a heart. Nothing original here except for scenes so vulgar and tasteless that it would make Howard Stern turn in disgust.

The script is nil and the acting less than stellar. The conincidences purposefully placed in the film to support the plot are too great to be credible and the action too dull to keep it interesting. I frankly could have done without the grotesque heroin-induced sodomy scenes. Watch "Heat" instead if you want to see a great bank heist film. Don't waste your time or money on this one, it's a sleeper at best: A negative rating is called for. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A brilliant piece of art depending on your expectations.
To me, Roger Avary's Mr. Stitch is one of the most underrated movies ever. Yes, it's sparse special fx and some sets may look cheap, but hell, this isn't what Mr. Stitch is all about, in the same way as Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek: The Next Generation" isn't about science fiction.

If you're looking for great fx or hollywood style entertainment, then you'd be ill-advised with Mr. Stitch, this is not the kind of movie to watch with friends at a video party. It's the fusion of utterly brilliant, thought provoking dialogues with truly magnificent music (by tomandandy) where this piece of art excels. Mr. Stitch has a timeless quality to it and if watched alone and without any distraction (recommended) it creates a unique, almost hypnotic mood. I especially like the beautiful night sky scene.

As so often, it's all a matter of taste, but by no means should Mr. Stitch be called a failure as it definately succeeds in transporting it's message to those inclined to listen carefully enough.

If you prefer "Last Light" to "Dead Man Walking", "Dark City" to "Matrix", "Supernova" to "Star Wars", "Sweet November" to "Sleepless in Seattle" or "Blade Runner" to "Minority Report", then, I guess, you're compatible with Mr. Stitch and there's a very good chance that you'll love it.

Personally, I'd pay nearly any price if this little gem came out on DVD.

awesome
this movie is awesome.....if you dont wanna rent it then def keep your eyes open for it to be on scifi again

A brilliant failure
I must say I was totally glued to the screen during the first 40 minutes of the movie. While a number of old ingredients were present in the story, some twists of modern science were carefully applied. The vast potential of the mix was immensely evident, and unfolding suspense carefully adminstered to the viewer.

Many movies seem to be released in pairs (such as Volcano & Dante's Peak, Deep Impact & Armageddon...), and such was the case with this one too: it explores some elements akin to the film Powder.

Unfortunately, as the movie went on, the story solved itself towards the ending in a very predictable, traditional way. Which is sad, since this film had all the possibilities to be something truly unique. While a lot of the film was artistically extremely high-brow, a few ugly bits here and there damaged the effect.

The soundtrack was similar to the movie itself: something very interesting and potential was on the works by "Tomandandy", but a number of searing flaws ruined the whole.

Bizzare and weird in a tradtion to "Brazil!"
A modern day Frankenstein story. Rutger Hauer is one of the many scientist who have created a human from 88 different people who donated there bodies to science. One problem. in his sleep he is haunted by the souls jumbled in his resseurected body. Starring Rutger Hauer, Wil Weaton, Nia Peeples, and Ron Pearlman. Made by in assosiation with the SciFi Channel.

Pretentious, boring, art-wannabe timewaster
So the director shared an Oscar with Tarantino and apparently some producer gave hime a big fat check to make this pretentious "thoughtful" SF disaster. Don't waste your time cuz nothing works in boring "art" piece. Actually it looks like it would properly work as a stage play..well, maybe not. "Killing Zoe" was an okay flick but this turd is as bad as "Closetland". Mr. Hauer has wasted his talent with yet another bomb but what's new. ... Read more

Reviews (143)

The most original and creative film of 2002
This year's most original and creative movies, The Rules Of Attraction, in a certain sense, "rules" A must see for anyone in college, for thats the basis of the film. The movie follows three main characters, Sean Bateman, (the brother of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman), Paul, and Lauren. Sean is a drug dealer who is recieving love letters from a woman throughout the movie, and runs into many different sexual and drug related situations. Paul is bisexual, (although men is what he's mostly looking for), hes gotta crush on Sean, but Sean will only smoke w/ him, he has no interest in him sexually. Lauren, whos still a virgin and whos boyfriend has been in Europe for quite a while, decides maybe she should pursue other men, one of those men being Sean.
The film has a very creative style in inrtoducing its main characters, the first segment, which is really the end of the film, follows each one during a party, one at a time, then reverses literally to follow the next character, its really quite amazing, and probably a lot less confusing watching it than reading it. Go see it, its more than a movie, its an experience.

Attractive Rules
Cult director Roger Avary ("Killing Zoe") adapts the material from one of Brett Easton Ellis` books and provides an enticing and addictive cinematic experience in "The Rules of Attraction".
The movie focuses on 3 college kids who are emotionally hurt and the only way to deal with the situation is spending their time around drugs, sex, parties and little else. The directing is edgy and stylish enough, pherhaps even a bit too hip for it`s own good, but excellent nonetheless. There are a lot of jump/ reverse moments in the narrative to make it interesting, as well as multiple story perspectives, split screens and an unique, cretive way of connecting sound and image (the soundtrack is just great and sets the mood properly). At times, it recalls some "Trainspotting" or "Pulp Fiction" moments (Avary co-wrote the latter, by the way).
Sean (played by James Van Der Beek) is a character one love`s to hate, a selfish, crude and arrogant guy who eventually gets a hold on himself as he becomes more and more interested in Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon), a smart, late virgin who is expecting for her boyfriend to return from a trip to Europe. Paul (Ian Somerhalder) is a bisexual guy who recently dated Lauren and starts caring deeply about Sean, who rejects him. So, we have a circular plot who`s simple in a way but is told in a refreshing manner, so it never becomes tiresome. Sure, there are some apparently meaningless scenes but as a whole they make sense and help to develop the characters, who are more than what they first seem (although we never get to know them properly, since "no one knows anyone").
The movie offers an interesting look at a part of college experience, showing a darker, cynical and bitter side of teenagers and young adults that isn`t seen in the most common, dumbed down and predictable teen flicks out there. This mixes heavy dark comedy with sad moments of loneliness, despair and alienation. There`s sex, drugs and rock n`roll, but it isn`t really a case of style over substance. Sure, it has style and is visually compelling, but it`s also meaningful and though-provoking, especially in the poetic, gothic-like moments of the third act. One of the best teen movies of the last years, alongside "Ghost World" and "Donnie Darko".

even better than the book
this movie was awesome it did a great job of showing the characters emotion and expressing what college life (even if it is a pretty wild version) is really like. This movie does a great job of showing the same event through other people's point of view finally a movie that understands that life has more than one point of view

What was the point?
After watching this film, I wondered "what was the most obnoxious part of this movie"? Was it at the drug dealer's house? Was it the gay guys' dinner with their mothers? Or maybe it was the overly long and inflated "whirlwind" tour of Europe through the eyes of, perhaps, the most despicable person in this film?

All of these characters are deplorable and shallow. One reviewer said they felt sorry for the girl who was sending the purple letters! Why? She does herself in for a guy that she doesn't even know and has made no attempt to talk to!! Following their lives leaves the viewer feeling empty. They are all emotionally and ethically bankrupt. Why should we care about these characters? What is the point here?!

It is truly sad that Brett Easton Ellis has gotten rich writing pathetic drivel such as this. He has truly hoodwinked a lot of people who are easily shocked. Richard Avary and Ellis is a good combo though-- because both are masters at creating exploitative, sensationalist garbage with no heart.

2 stars for the acting only.

They should have never made this awful film.
Directed by Roger Avary ''The Rules of Attraction'' is one of the worst movies of 2002 and there have been a couple.

The movie stars James Van Der Beek from ''Dawson's Creek'' as Sean Bateman, a drug dealing slanking student who basically by his own words is a ''social vampire'' someone who leeches of others, and sinks his fangs to those naive and weak enough around him. The best example is near the beginning where Sean is telling us through a couple of brief flashbacks about the pathetic situations he has been involved in. He then seeks to forgot about his problems like some individuals by consuming himself with alcohol and then finding a cheap girl to sleep with. His prayers get answered when he meets a young blonde who is obviously a little drunk as well. Anyhow fast forward 5 minutes and then we are introduced to a whole slew of pathetic characters. There is the homosexual character of Paul (Ian Somerhalder) who basically likes to sleep with any boys around him. I doubt think gays would have liked this character either. I have seen in many films vile heterosexual characters but dare I say it, Paul is the first vile homosexual character Ive seen in film (another good reason that the movie shouldn't have been made let alone a novel)

Supposedly this horrible movie was taken from a novel by Bret Easton Ellis and I could only shudder to think how bad the book is if the movie of this calibur is taken from a novel. In fact looking at another site it doesn't quite know how to qualify the movie. It has the movie itself listed as a Comedy/Drama/Romance/Thriller? lol

Back to the movie, we see a couple of the stupid situations Mr. Bateman is in. Apparently he has a drug pimp (some weak little 17 yr old white boy) who think he is a big shot because he carries a gun. Anyhow, this pimp wants money from Sean (apparently they have some sort of partnership going where this guy gets his own cut of the drug money). Sean can't pay the money but he comes with a way to get it by swindling a couple of rich preppies who want to get high....lol

Then there comes this sick twist in the film, Paul sexually loves Sean and Sean is interested in this girl Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) supposedly because she is pure and sweet (which is not what I heard in the novel).
Anyhow, Sean Bateman well to put in a blunt is real nilist, he likes to turn everything into crap plain and simple. The movie itself takes one direction (to sicken us with one hideous character after the next and shows their selfish stupid actions)
and pretty does until the very end. Speaking of which, the ending itself is written on the wall halfway, it's not surprising, it's a sad ending to a sad vile film.

''The Rules of Attraction'' also has done nothing for the cast either, James Beek hasn't done a movie in 2 yrs and none of the other actors except maybe Kate Bosworth who has a short role as Kelly (friend of Lauren) has gone anywhere.

The only good thing that I think comes from watching such a stupid movie as this, is that it shows that even in 2002 American directors still seek to make incredibly bad movies hoping that audiences will dig them, they won't and I didn't dig this movie at all.

Another horrible movie with James Van Der Beek which started a couple of years ago with his weak movie ''Varsity Blues''.

I did get the blues watching this movie (pun intended). Van Der Beek is just not a good actor at all, all he has is good looks but not much acting depth. So stay away from this movie. Dont fork any money into buying it, but if you still want to see how bad it is rent it. ... Read more