Too many fans seem to be blown away

Best movie ever!

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Attraction is a melodramatic sleeper that never picks up. An obsessed ex boyfriend freaks out his old girl with stalking… so what. This film is not exciting, entertaining, nor even interesting in the least. This movie is not scary; it even goes so far as to mention how harmless this stalker really is. So what exactly is Attraction? A waste of time. The characters are pathetic, all of them, and poorly acted to boot. This is one of those films in which you will catch yourself repeatedly looking at the wall instead of the screen out of sheer boredom. The worst part is that the whole time I was waiting for something cool to happen, but this film never picks up. Overall Attraction took away an hour and a half of my life that I want back. This movie sucks.

Writer/Director Russell DeGrazier's film is a chamber piece built around four main characters: two obsessive men and their women. Lead Matthew Settle plays a magazine columnist and radio phone-in show host who, Frasier-like, offers advice to the troubled and lovelorn, all the while his own private life is a mess. His relationship with Liz (Gretchen Mol) has finished sometime back and yet he can't forget her. So much so in fact that he begins to stalk her, eventually driving her further into the arms of editor and friend Garrett (Tom Everett Scott). At the same time, at first in rebound, and then more and more seriously, Matthew dates Corey (Samantha Mathis) a vulnerable actress precariously low in self-esteem. (`I never seem to make an impression – so don't feel bad'). It's an emotional pressure-cooker, and when the violent release occurs, Matthew finds himself the victim of his own reputation.Criticisms of 'Attraction' have stemmed from the threatening nature of these relationships as well as the obscure motivation of the main characters. There's no denying that the element of sexual stalking, of seeing women as prey or prizes, is an aspect of the drama to which in these PC-times one might take exception. The sleazy Matthew, aggressively self-centered and at times violent, is a hero to whom the audience's response is at best ambivalent, at worst outright condemnatory. Only at the end of the film does he elicit any real sympathy. Other characters fare only slightly better. Liz, once Matthew's girl, may be the victim of his unwarranted attentions, but her allegiance in love is shallow and eventually revealed as transitory. She does not deserve the experiences she undergoes, but her sexual weakness for her former boyfriend is a contributory factor to her woes. Garrett, first seen as Liz's white knight, eventually proves more similar to Matthew than we think. This becomes apparent first as he ‘stalks' him and his new girlfriend, sneering `How do you like being followed?'. The most upright of the four leads is Corey: her initial confusion and doubt as she shyly seeks Liz's permission to see Matthew is genuine, and provokes our most positive response. But as she in turn eventually ‘stalks' Garrett, causing his accident, we too have doubts about the purity of her motives.What drives all four characters, of course, is ‘attraction'. The problem the film has is that this motivation is hardly ever put into words, let alone discussed. This absence of meaningful dialogue (as opposed to the angst ridden complaints of the stalked and lovesick) means that the audience is left to fill the blanks by itself. What exactly Matthew sees in Liz, or Liz in Garrett, Corey in Matthew, Matthew in Corey and so on, is left unexplained in detail. Rationale, where there is any, is given glibly: `It's like he's an alcoholic and you're a vodka martini' says Garrett of Liz's continuing attraction for her ex. Or, it is shown through mindless acts of sexual frustration, as when Matthew smashes the window outside Liz's door. This vacuum of the heart is most apparent in the key scene in the film, when Corey appears nude on stage, watched by all three of the principals. Corey's exposure to the world is physical, more than expressed in words. As she literally ‘bares her all' she has nothing really interesting to say. Garrett is content to cough and laugh, Matthew gets violent and Liz sits in acute embarrassment. Even after the traumatic event Corey does not spend time in any self-examination, save to express brief dismay and shock. Aptly strobed like a projection through a slow shutter her previous nude performance, and its inadequate reception, can be seen as the essence of the film in microcosm.If one can accept this limitation at the film's core, then it has much to offer. In some ways the lack of emotional communication may even be a strength. Matthew is a deliberately ambivalent character, played excellently by Settle. An indication of this is the interview between him and an unknown questioner, played out in extract as the film proceeds. How we view Matthew is reflected in how we take the immediate, dramatic, context of his talking. Is he being interrogated by police, after some terrible crime yet to be shown, or just explaining away obsessions to the curious? Or is he just taking part in some media event related to his job? The reappearance of the scene, as a smiling Matthew introduces and describes himself, forces us each time to reassess him in view of what we have just seen in the plot's ‘real time'. In fact, much of the interest and tension in the film stems from Matthew and Garrett, whose motivations are unclear. ‘Attraction' is a film full of such ironies, whether it is Corey nude on stage ‘revealing' nothing, the mirrored stalkings of Matthew, Garrett, and then Corey, or Matthew's final predicament. As a circular tale of obsessive behaviour it works neatly, helped along by DeGrazier's flashy direction, and is produced exactly to the right sort of scale such a taut story requires. Settle has a face which reminds one slightly of Tom Cruise while Mol tries a touch of Cameron Diaz. Had such high powered stars actually been available with a bigger budget, the whole thing would probably been less satisfactory. All in all, it's recommendable, and there's much worse things sitting on the video shelf.

It's a sleeper, a B movie, a thriller about relationships, obsession, and a million other things you should never do in your own life. Saw it on HBO, and it came out of nowhere; never heard of it before. It's a pretty good watch, good for renting. While not the best written film out there, it's got good performances and enough plot changes to keep you guessing. I thought Samantha Mathis stood out in this, as did Everett Scott. The rest of the cast were okay. I wanted to tune away, thinking it was going to really suck, but it kept my interest and by the end, I was terribly interested. Nice movie to see accidentally, especially, as others have noted, if you know nothing about it.

I just watched this movie on HBO last night and came away from it sorely disappointed. "Attraction" is proof-positive that good movie-making cannot start without good writing. I think I can safely say without spoiling the story that `Attraction's' story line is entirely focused on delivering `surprising' plot twists. Unfortunately, these twists and turns only come as non-sequiturs, because the character development (non existent), plot (if you can call it that) and dialogue (embarrassing) do *NOTHING* to support the `twists' that are supposed to surprise (rather than confuse) the viewer. Ham-fisted doesn't even begin to describe the ensuing on-screen mess. Furthermore, the characters are so bland and come off as so many cookie-cutter, self-absorbed Gen-Xers that the viewer is left with no one to identify with, or any character to anchor what takes place on screen. In the end, `Attraction' comes off as two hours documenting meaningless characters as they behave in completely random fashion.