The Rules of Attraction (2002) - Comedy, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score



The incredibly spoiled and overprivileged students of Camden College are a backdrop for an unusual love triangle between a drug dealer, a virgin and a bisexual classmate.

IMDB: 6.7
Director: Roger Avary
Stars: James Van Der Beek, Ian Somerhalder
Length: 110 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 109 out of 417 found boring (26.13%)

One-line Reviews (267)

Boring, pointless, and insipid would best describe it.

Don't waste your time.

Very good adaption; enjoyable .

They were unpredictable and exciting to watch.

The world were the bad guys get their justs, the hero gets the heroine (or vice versa), and the film ends with a happy note, you get up leave the theater feeling good again.

I thought that Roger Avary's screenplay was trite and makes kids in college look like 1,000 times more vacuous, superficial and f*cked up than they really are.

Nothing happens.

So if you're bored one night pop in this, you'll be entertained.

It worked great on American Beauty, as well as Fight Club once it got out of the monotone, and American Psycho, sortof.

) for finally coming back to his starting point, it seems to remember us the daily routine and the boring life we're living, and that nothing and nobody can help us to fill, without a little understanding.

What you get is a boat-load of information about all of these people and what you are left with is an empty being, soulless, if you will.

Top Ten in pointless movies.

All that just to introduce 3 very shallow, uninteresting characters that never get really related in a way that makes me feel for them or them situation.

It's the nihilism that ultimately renders the film unwatchable.

I found it quite entertaining though may be considered rather crude to some.

It was well made and very entertaining.

It's a painful and unsettling movie to watch for you'd leave the theater wondering what's happening to the current youthful generation and why it's becoming so difficult for them to connect with one another.

Rules Of Attraction is awesome, just the way the story was told and filmed was so electrifying and intense.

This was definitely one of the worst movies that I've ever seen!

This is a generation coddled to the point where they set around their schools on the weekend analyzing the point of an obviously depraved and pointless movie, while they naively condemn those realists in the world who safeguard them and their ability to pose as "artists.

His self-indulgent pornography is not literature, only verbal masturbation.

"The Rules of Attraction" is both boring and unpleasant.

The cinematography is topnotch and engaging, each character has a cinematic style and the style adapts as the character grows.

The film is flashy and pretentious with endless homages to Stanely Kubrick and other filmmakers.

Sex, drugs, sex, drugs, sex, drugs, no plot .

"The Rules of Attraction" is a well crafted and very entertaining look at college life today.

If you care for wacky plot lines, beyond believable characters, and insipid bland banter, this is the movie for you.

I was rather surprised at some of the other comments that the film was trashy, vulgar and boring.

Standing on it's own, it's the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands.

It is a bravura, compelling sequence; the end of a life and of a love unrequited, shown in chillingly sporadic detail.

Then, about a quarter of the people left between a half-hour and a hour into the movie.

Pretentious piece of trash about the lives of several college students.

If you've read or seen any other of Bret Easton Ellis works, it makes the movie all the more enjoyable.

Needless to say those beautiful actresses Biel, Sossamon, and Bosworth, make an otherwise morbid film worth watching.

Intriguing study of unrequited attraction .

fascinating and disturbing .

This scene in particular really captures the essence of Ellis's book, as does Victor's thrilling trip round Europe.

Well-done, but intense .

Seemingly obsessed with biological functions, Avary takes us through a boring nonstory about some ridiculous coed caricatures and booze and drugs and sex and masturbation and defecation and regurgitation..etc. Given no tangible storyline, much time consuming filler, and nothing original or creative, this droning kaleidoscope of nonsense is, well, a load of crap destined for the "pull my finger" youth mentality.

Truly this is one of the best college movies ever made, Stunning actors and produced by one of the greatest Directors who have ever faced the earth!

Emotionally empty .

Fascinating and at times complex with some heartfelt moments managing to come through the mix, but this film will leave you exhausted and hating yourself the next morning, Problem is you never really care about any of the characters (well save that, I felt a bit sorry for a girl who sends Van Der Beek secret love letters) and the film can be very empty at times and is nearly pointless.

People say the this movie is supposed to be a satire, or that Bret Eastern Ellis (who wrote the book on which it is based) is a satirist and in actual fact a harsh moralist who writes in a deliberately flat manner about empty vacuous souls to highlight the deteriorating moral fabric of modern society.

An unpredictable comedy in the same ranks as Trainspotting and Bongwater: lots of drug use, lots of disaffected/jaded youth, and lots of dark comedy.

There's more such examples (the tacked-on suicide girl subplot, the flashy MTV re-telling of Victor's story, and more) but I'm already bored of typing so I'll stop now.

" They can even be used as great tools for college humor; and yet, how this film makes sex and drugs seem "uninteresting" is beyond me.

However, I wouldn't say there are any antiheros either, just boring ambling people who don't know what to do with themselves other than do drugs and have sex.

Visually and aurally stunning.

The film went nowhere, and was too depressing and empty.

Really enjoyable collage drama, based on a harsh book by Bret Easton Ellis.

Unlike political satire or compelling internal psychodrama, for example, such effort lacks any objective frame of reference.

This is the worst movie I've seen all year.

It makes Sean Bateman's infatuation with her all the more cliche, the slutty guy falling for the pure as snow girl.

It's a fascinating method, and he works it capably.

The film is engaging and important if you watch it with an eye for the subtle nuances of the satire.

I wouldnt' say that I enjoyed it very much because I was so swept away by it's art and style.

This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen in my life.

Save your money.

There's a point to it, and I respect the way he uses this gimmick to have different stories overlap, but the reverse filming is overdone and becomes little more than a waste of time.

In this book he threw away such pretentious writing tools as plot, characterisation, multiple tenses and empathy.

Most of the rest is squalid, tiresome trash.

Poor photography, bad acting, story and writing.. A complete waste of time, in my humble opinion, I can't think of a single thing I liked about this movie, I wish I never found out about it.

Our cast are a group of near-automatons, empty in the eyes and always indulging in sex, drugs and rock and roll.

It's boring.

Finding out who was leaving the mystery letters was interesting, but I just found this movie really stupid and pointless.

This movie was the worst movie I've ever rented.

This film is obviously trying very hard to be edgy and cool, but unfortunately comes off as pretentious and quite boring.

The plot, if any, was SO SLOW!!!

Many times I've liked films that critics called self-indulgent, such as Bob Fosse's "All that Jazz.

There's ambiguity, and then there's guaranteed confusion.

The story was empty, the characters were empty, and the dialogues were...

I'm fine with not having to love or even like the protagonists in order to enjoy a film, but the characters were too dull.

Homophobic and pointless .

About half-way through, the film takes a different turn, something perhaps more true to Ellis' style of writing, but the actual implementation of it leaves a vaguely bland aftertaste.

" After viewing Roger Avary's "The Rules of Attraction," this reviewer was left downright bored.

drugs and a little sex, mix in some pretentious boring droll dialogue, and you have this movie.

A shocking, entertaining, and powerful portrait of some of the nastiest and most grotesque freaks in American Literature and Film .

It uses the same content over and over again to try to create so many different things: Love, drama, tragedy, romance but ultimately, these things are never really in the picture and you never get a sense they will ever be with the rather bland, bored expressions the characters have on their faces.

And previous reviews were correct in discussing how pretentious this movie was.

Perhaps surprisingly enjoyable, "The Rules of Attraction" is a strange beast: part exposure of the artifice and posturing of Reagan's America and of 'Generation X' and part "Fight Club"-esque ambivalent support for today's individualist, consumer culture.

This film is duller than Ceramics 211.

Seriously, don't waste your time.

Cheezy, boring, cliche, pointless and any just flat out stupid.

Total waste of time.

A pretty shallow film about self-obsessed middle-class freshmen at a New England college who conspicuously consume their way through suffocating student ennui by engaging in drunken shags, chemical abuse and keg-swilling frat parties.

The bold style, great soundtrack and strong performances from a very talented young cast makes this an engaging if bruising movie.

Skip this piece of self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual trash.

However, if you look at this film as a Collection of Scenes, as a sort of sit back and enjoy the view movie, then it is very, very intriguing.

i dont like it when movies change the way you think about things (in a bad or confusing way).

Of the principal actors, Shannon Sossamyn is dishrag-bland; Van Der Beek is trying so hard to be "edgy" that you can see his neck veins bulging; Jessica Biel actually does a good job with her character,it's just too bad her character is despicably irredeemable; and Ian Somerhalder is great--until you realize he's just ripping off Tom Cruise in Risky Business.

This film is definitely not for everyone, but I found its satirical and fatalistic depiction of the `Rules of Attraction' intriguing, entertaining, and tragic all at once.

Its a horribly empty world of people that you would never want to meet.

By making the movie unpredictable it catches the audience off guard and keeps them paying close attention to detail, making a more entertaining movie experience.

With these exceptions the film was about nothing, nothing happened and I should have nothing to say about it.


What this film does is hover around its principal for far too long.

Much like Patrick in American Psycho (despite any debate which surrounds the killings in the book/movie Ellis himself has said that the vicious behavior of Bateman is confined to his psyche, to his own feelings of inadequacy etc), the characters in 'Rules' are impotent to express their rage and emotion in mature ways and are reduced to the expressions we see in the film- empty sexual experiences, suicide, drug use, repressed feelings, and acting out against their parents.

Terrific performances and occasional laughs cannot make up for a dull, incoherent mess with sex, drugs, sex, drugs, sex, drugs, etc etc etc, but no plot to speak of.

Boring, pointless, shallow exercise in self-gratification .

Maybe I missed something in this "film", but I have to say it is perhaps one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

To sum things up, don't waste your time on this film or these characters.

I found Rules to be doubly pointless.

Nevertheless, RULES OF ATTRACTION is highly entertaining.

It's unpleasant with unlikable characters, and a slow pace.

Once again easton ellis creates a story with no plot and has me glued to the screen.

they should call it "the rules of confusion".

He was sold as someone empty inside.

Is it disturbing, yes (in fact I almost walked out after the first ten minutes).

I only recommend it if the description above sounds intriguing to you.

But this movie had that extra oomph which made it all too enjoyable.

This movie was really enjoyable.

That is the whole point and to label the film itself as being pretentious is absurd.

The first one said: "it's the worst movie i have ever seen".

Dull, and hardly as provocative as the filmmakers must have hoped .

Twisted, strange and oddly fascinating slice of cinema...

" "The Rules of Attraction" is unbelievably pretentious.

It's a complete bore!

Something full of empty actions and empty of meaningful acts.

There are drawn out passages celebrating nihilism ad infinitum beyond the point of despair.

Some felt the movie was too much like it's characters--empty, posh, glossy and confused callowness.

"Rules of Attraction" is a well constructed piece that contains the necessities of a great film: an unpredictable storyline, complex characters, articulate cinematography.

It's predictable, nihilistic, and one dimensional.

In the end, it was a very enjoyable film.

Oh, the poor little rich kids who are so bored with life that they have to turn towards the dark side of drugs and demeaning sex.

The film is flashy and pretentious .

Some of the scenes in the snow and many of the glimpses of intense expression from one character or another, or the one true phrase in the whole film "No one really knows anyone" (although it looses half its power the second time you hear it) stuck with me after I had went home and even the next day.

The pretentious film kids are going to go crazy.

The film's mean-spirited, off-putting approach holds everything down, except the esteemed direction-with camera tricks including slow and fast motion, and backward motion.

A stunning film, James Van Der Beek will amaze you.

It isn't stupid like 90% of the current teen movies, but it's quite pretentious.

Self-Indulgent tale of over-privileged American college kids .

Three: using the stars of Dawson's Creek and 7th Heaven (basically clean shows) to show intense drug use, suicide, gay sex, masturbation, gang bangs and profane language.

These types of pointless scenes are constant throughout the film.

She is sexy, therefore any movie she is in is worth watching.

On the one hand, it's quite disturbing, overtly confusing, and utterly pointless.

I'm sure most critics will argue that the plot and themes lacked a sense of coherency, but I felt this was exactly what the film was attempting to capture; the emptiness, cruelty, futility, relational frustration, unrequited desire, and ultimate loneliness of `modern existence' to borrow a trite literary theme.

Normally, love triangles in cinema are interesting subject matter, but it is rendered uninteresting by a story that goes nowhere.

The characters are very thin and any attempts I made to care about them or even have a passing interest in them was thwarted at every turn by the sheer banality of them.

the cons: lack of clarity, and is hard to follow, at times.

The characters are unlikeable and, worse, uninteresting; the few scenes that are interesting plummet into ho-hum nothingness and the intelligent viewer is left feeling cheated while the unintelligent viewer misspells "libido" in his/her IMDb.

The movie explores these characters via clever, exciting montages and by starting off at the end, showing where each character will wind up, then going back to the very beginning.

The poignant secret admirer subplot, to mention it, gives a sense of progression to a story that would otherwise run the risk of getting repetitive.

it's a sort of bored/hopeless/careless/nihilistic/materialistic mindset that just did not come through in the film.

I found it a little boring as the movie tries too hard to be shocking.

WORST movie I've ever seen .

The film is highly stylized with many innovative approaches and ideas in its storytelling and editing, yet somehow still manages to often come across as tedious and dull.

Now, I've never seen a college campus as fun as the portrayed in this film, but the "over the topness" makes this movie worth watching.

the editing must have been tedious as heck.

Sean Bateman - rather convincingly, swaggeringly portrayed by James Van Der Beek - spouts the above words as some sort of justification; they mean no more than his almost sinister, empty muttering of "Rock'n'Roll" when action is nearby.

But what I got was one of the worst movies of the year.

A fascinating look at a love triangle on the campus of Camden College where self-absorption seems to be universal and education of minimal interest to the students.

Roger Avary the director deserves praise for attempting to present the film in a novel way involving rewinding time, but he deserves criticism for doing it in a way which just causes confusion and/or frustration.

Unknown Theresa Wayman (co-band player with Sossamon on her band) is simply stunning/remarkable in her brief, basically non-speaking scenes as Cafeteria Girl (named Mary in the book)---and her suicide scene is one of the most emotional, devastating, unforgettable moments in movie history you will ever see.

The camera tricks were cool at first, then just tedious.

It is worth watching alone for the corridor scene, the beginning and the journey through victors travels.

Perhaps because he feels that the audience won't be able to stomach a dumb, boring, promiscuous Lauren, he has completely re-invented the character and transferred all of her bad qualities on to her blonde American Pie-style roommate.

This movie has no plot.

I have seen many of them, and, as you know, it's all basically cliché and formula.

don't waste your time and mood.

Word to the wise people, make sure you get a little info about a movie before you waste your time and money.

That lame angle has been tweaked so much more cleverly than even the best scene in this waste of time.

Electrifying And Intense .

Begins with a technicolor yawn...

And so are all the other characters in this dreary, pointless tale of student angst.

All Time Worst Movie .

In this case, however, the premise and characters are so devoid of any meaning, the editing and dialog so contrived, that it would be akin to rating the performance of a serial killer putting a few random pieces into a jigsaw puzzle: In the end you don't really get a clear picture of anything, and they're not people you'd want to spend time with anyway.

Yawn, fast forward .

Rules of Attraction is a movie I like to revisit from time to time, for its unique tone and its relentlessness, and because it shows a part of the human experience that hardly any movies do, and does it in a way that is not only dark, but also entertaining.

In the five or six times he does it, the reverse goes on FAR too long.

Rules of Attraction follows the student drink, drugs, sex and unrequited love themes of many formulaic movies.

Either way the characters are completely uninteresting; they are purely self-centered and static.

That having been said, it's possible that the Rules of Attraction is the worst movie I've ever seen.

To be truthful, there is no real core to this film; it's just entwining student's stories and even then, they're exploited in a rather distasteful and, to be honest, 'boring' manner.

The rest of these spoiled rich kids just bored me.

No one in the movie is remotely likable, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they are all also extremely boring -- who cares what they say and why they say it?

boring and interesting at the same time .

It definetly goes on my top 5 Worst Movie list.

Two of the most enjoyable hours of your life are in your near future.

This ugly, pointless film uses neat film techniques and strange music to showcase, for some strange reason, the dregs of humanity.

Don't waste your time.

Pretentious and self indulgent, the character development and plotline construction within the film seem to be far less important than the use of flashy stylistic techniques.

We couldn't take it anymore and walked out.

If I weren't an optimist who sincerely believed the movie would get better and worthwhile, I would have walked out.

Now, those same hypocritcs are bashing RULES OF ATTRACTION as a pointless and cruel film.

No message or social commentary.

A self-indulgent film with poor character development.

All of this being taken into account, however, i still walked out of this film satisfied and prepared to recommend it.

Roger Avery's sharp editing and his cinematography make the film enjoyable.

When it was 15 minutes I was already annoyed by the nonsensical abuse of reverse camera, which looked pretentious and after the third consecutive use I was rolling my eyes.

Instead we get a gripping tale of college life in the middle of the Reagan 80's.

I think this film thought it was going to be some brilliant masterpiece and in reality in was just a boring hateable movie.

Highlights include a breathtaking three and a half minute summation of Victor's trip to Europe and a dinner table scene with Faye Dunaway, Swoozie Kurtz, Somerhalder and a drunken Quincy Evans.

Casting James Van Der Beek (television's squeaky clean Dawson) as Sean Bateman, an intense college kid who sleeps around and deals drugs, is a bold piece of casting that really pays off.

Besides the boring characters and thin plot, the film techniques (split screen, putting it in reverse, etc.) were distracting and thus annoying.

The scene when Paul and his friends bring the freshman to the ER is very confusing.

Engaging roll-backs take us from a straightforward bad taste pastiche - drunken students have sex while another films the action, the first male repeatedly and almost absent-mindedly vomiting over the woman he is shafting.

My head now hurts from the bland attempts of this movie to appeal to an over-sexed, over-drugged community of college students who want to feel intellectual by analyzing this avant garde crap.

Amazing how a movie can be both pretentious and Porky's-style stupid at the same time.

Waste of time .

Before any other users pass judgment on me, here are two redeeming factors that seperates this movie from excrutiating and unbearable.

They are all vacant automatons living empty lives with empty brains knee jerking their way to their next abuse of sex, drugs, music etc. The characters are neither believable, likable, sympathetic nor developed.

Misrepresenting itself as inane, it lulls the viewer into a false sense of superficiality, an apparent nonchalance.

The performance like Van Der Beek's is excessively honest and true, and maybe that is why this film has left so many reviews empty or wishing for something else.

The split-screen makes it all so confusing.

First of all, a little more than half of the people in the theater left ten minutes into the movie.

Van Der Beek's role performance is powerfully dark and intense.

Avary scores a slam-dunk with the brilliant forwards-backwards beginning which manages to stay faithful to the spirit of the source material, whilst also being stylish and exciting to watch.

I suppose we see too much throughout the story and then become bored by its repeated presence.

Well, gave it two stars because Faye Dunaway didn't look bad at all.. The story was immediately forgettable, there was no plot and the characters were immensely unsympathetic.

Perhaps because I could not relate to ANYONE, I found ALL characters boring and/or mean-spirited, and thought the direction was just pretentious, the 45 minutes was punishment.

I shoulda walked out.

contains an expected, heady mix of sex, drugs and music but always intelligent and with some funny, entertaining scenes.

But, i'm sure there are plenty of people just like Roger Avery--swarmy, smug, self-inflating "artists" so obsessed with complaining about the so-called "Hollywood System" and showing what they learned in film-school than to actually make an intelligent, entertaining work.

The technique of running parts of the film backwards wasn't novel or inventive, it was done for such long stretches that it became trite and annoying.

It's so pointless and trying way too hard to be unaffected.

Save your money!

There is lots of good times though and perhaps it is a good movie to watch when you are high or drunk - when I watched it I was completely straight though, I try to resist temptation these days, and I still enjoyed it a lot.

First of all the main characters are quite weird, the actions unravel in a slow pace, resulting into a love triangle between the main characters, but the point is none of them really communicate very well with each other, and through out the movie a viewer can easily be mislead or rather get bored, because of the weird movie parts, which really are not that logical and interesting when you look at it out of context.

Save your money and your time.

Pretentious Trash .

But stick with it, and you could be pleasantly suprised how deep and engaging this film is.

This movie is self-indulgent without adequate compensations.

Need a reason to see it , well it was entertaining from an almost comic point of view.

Starts well, with fast-rewind action linking various threads in the narrative, but becomes boring with all the deliberate schlock (a pretty stomach churning suicide scene rivalling ken park) and inane psychobabble.

And it dragged on just a little too long...

"it sucked it had no plot line" get some brains and watch the movie again then.

This boring-as-a-satire scene serves no...

Because it is fascinating, you know something big is gonna come, and you struggle through the experience to get there.

This surprisingly tedious, satirically-inept film revolves around a love triangle: A bisexual male (Ian Somerhalder) in love with a heterosexual male (James Van Der Beek) in love with a virgin female (Shannyn Sossamon) in love with a hedonistic male named Victor (Kip Pardue).

Revealing frailties and hypocrisies of contemporary college students in the rarefied and exclusive atmosphere of (transparently) Bennington College is in and of itself something of a bore.

A real tragic pathos cuts into the later scene where Lauren calls on her presumed 'current boyfriend' (who has been travelling around Europe; an empty jaunt conveyed bleakly in staccato lines, read quickly by the actor 'gainst a backdrop of partial, flickering images), Victor (Kip Pardue), who doesn't even remember her and is harbouring a hooker in his room.

If your looking to waste 2 hours of your life, then go ahead and watch this horrible film.


Although only Ellis' second effort (a follow-up to Less Than Zero), and written less than a year after he graduated from college, I found "The Rules Of Attraction" to be his most enjoyable book, all the more so when read in conjunction with the other four novels (Ellis does a great job of letting characters from previous books coexist in all his work- witness Paul Denton in American Psycho, Patrick Bateman in Glamorama, etc.). As a huge fan of the book I was crushed when I learned that it was to become a movie, especially one starring James Van Der Beek (who despite a strong performance in the film, is NOT who you would picture as Sean Bateman when reading the book)!

*Yawn* Rather than focus on some type of theme, the script just crams as much drugs, sex and violence into the shortest amount of time without any regard to the plot.

worst movie i have seen in ages.

But it's also very entertaining and darkly hilarious.

However, they're bored enough to do really, really unbelievable things without a flinch or the bat of a lash.

The reactions by the actors in their situations feel contrived.

I feel somewhat hypocritical for writing a comment on a film that I walked out of, but that's why I have to comment on it: I have never, in my 20 or so years of seeing movies in theaters, walked out on a movie before and requested my money back.

And by boring I mean everything about it is boring.

Their crises are trite and the script is full of wordy diatribes that amount to nothing.

The problem is when she tries to show this aspect of her character she falls flat on her face, be it the contrived crying scene after having sex with Sean or the awkward, parading around the room half-naked scene when she's ruining her roommates infatuation with Victor.

as an unpredictable and edgy dealer with a hair triggered temper.

"The Rules Of Attraction" starts James Van Der Beek of "Dawsons Creek" fame as Sean Bateman (younger brother of the other Bateman from "American Psycho"), a screwed up individual who takes ridiculous ammounts of drugs and who's life is all in all pretty pointless.

A horrible waste of time and film.

It's hard to decide which character is the most repellent and empty since we don't like or care in the least about them.

"The rules of attraction" is one of the worst movies I remember watching.

Some of the camera shots and ideas that the director had for this piece were simply stunning and masterful.

Victor's fast paced story of his trip to Europe, Sean and Mitch's drug deal with Rupet gone wrong.

I do agree with other IMDB users who say the film was pretentious.

Its intense at times and most certainly not another one of those predictable teen angst movies.

This movie will leave you feeling so empty.

Pointless, mundane, and morose beyond reality, it reinforced a paradigm that is dangerous to our society and our future.

See it more than once, don't waste your money on crap, go see this movie, it was to put it simply BRILLIANT!

Trite .

However, i was surprised to see the reactions of people indicating that it was one of the worst movies ever.

The main character of the movie, James Van Der Beek, we know nothing about except that he is in school, uses and sells drugs, and is a pretentious prick.

The characters are sad, pathetic, and deeply intriguing.

And he does it so perfectly that movie-goers looking for intense action or tears or giggles feel just as numb as the players.

A Horrible Waste of Time and Film .

He is ably supported by fellow leads Sossaman and Somerhalder who are equally engaging in their roles, Sossaman plays a highly contrasting character as both an innocent scarred by, and a willing participant, of the sordid games of her social scene, whilst Somerhalder plays the deeper than perceptions first meet homosexual yearning for connection in anyone, literally anyone who takes his wandering fancy.

It is fast paced and energetic, packed with a lot of hedonistic events.

The mundane attitude about sex was enough for the MPAA to initally brand this with their NC-17 rating.

Since there is really no storyline (and don't get me wrong, I don't need an Oscar award winning storyline to keep me interested) it would have to be a character study...

The dose of reality involving the insights into Victor alone make this movie worth watching when you compare it to the girl that's been waiting for him.

I think Bret Easton Ellis is a great novelist and the movies that have been made off his books are riveting.