Butterfly Effect: Too realistic for moviegoers?
 

Ok, I recently watched "The Butterfly Effect", and walked out of the theater in a partial daze.

This movie deals with what I would consider "true" horror stories;

Horrifying things that can and do occasionally happen to relatively normal people...I won't go into too much detail here, because I don't know how to use a black band spoiler thing...

Regardless, I thought this movie was an excellent depiction of what the average person would do under the same (albeit sci-fi)
circumstances, and would have rated the movie as at least B+ material.

I then checked several sources of movie ratings, and found that the film was roundly bashed by reputable and non-reputable sources, i.e., intelligent film critics and "joe-sixpack" moviegoers alike.

I saw three common themes: 1. They didn't like the acting, which I thought was at least competent, 2. The main character "didn't learn anything", or that "you couldn't feel sorry for him", ect. and 3. The movie was "too dark" "too gloomy" and didn't have an "uplifting message".

I was of the opinion that the writing was excellent, and the ending scored big points for not being "Hollywood" (it was all just a dream, or everything comes out all right, or everyone ends up with a better life except the villain, who is completely defeated).

I've begun to believe that non-Gen Xers will all hate this movie because it's too realistic: The main character is not a John Wayne White Hat Hero with only others' interests in mind.

Of course, it's possible that I have encountered the modern day "2001: A Space Odyssey" in reverse: A movie that I liked but that everyone else hates.

What did all of you think about this movie?

I have not seen it,but would be interested in checking it out after hearing that it is really dark & not as formulaic as the trailer made it seem.

Is it worth seeing in theaters,or should I wait for the dvd which may include the original even darker ending the director hinted at?

I think it is dropping down the top 10 charts,so I am not sure how packed theaters will be now. I wish I would have saw it on opening weekend. Would have been fun to see how the audience reacts to the material.

The best audience experiances I have the past year was at House of 1000 Corpses & The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Watching the shell shocked audiences react in horror & just plain disturbed when they were over was alot of fun;)


Since I have nothing else to do today,I could probably check it out,but its Sunday & I doubt many people will be there. Oh well,can always try to watch the movie itself & see if it is any good or not.

Hmm...

I would suggest that you see it in the theater, but be prepared for juveniles in the crowd....

Strangely enough, even though I really liked this movie, it's not the kind that you would want to watch again and again...

Its power-level would drop off severely if you knew what was going to happen.

Well I may check out an early evening showing today,if I am up for it.


I get what you mean by it may be good,but won't make you want to watch it again anytime soon. Similar reaction happened with Requiem for a Dream,was too intense & sad the first time. But I would love to view it again sometime,just have to be prepared to be depressed;)

I actually watched Cannibal Holocaust a second time(to show to a friend)..& that was a film I never thought I would watch again after the first time,despite it being a great film.

So hmm I will have to give Requiem a view again sometime(introducing it to a friend,gives me the perfect excuse to view it again:)).


But yeah,I may check out Butterfly Effect & see how it affects me emotionally.

By the time the film leaves theaters, it will make a total domestically around $60 million for a film made around $10 million (some reports say $9 million, others say $13 million). Even if critics and moviegoers alike trashed it, the film made one nice payday for New Line. I'm sure once it finds it's way to DVD, it'll find it's own little cult audience and all will be good.

I loved it and that all that matters to me. :)

I've read a lot of reviews and heard a lot of word of mouth. Nobody once has said "Too realistic," which surprises me. I mean, it doesn't get any more realistic than a time travel movie!

I was slightly interested in seeing this movie, but now that I know it doesn't have a "wrap everything up nice and tidy" ending I'm very interested in seeing it.

I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.

It's not a "great" movie by any means, but it is much better than most of the fodder that gets thrown on screen.

My wife and I both really liked it. Very close to a great movie.
"Realistic"? huh?
I wouldn't say so.

Intense dramatic interplay dealing with everyday (not superhuman) events (with a sci-fi twist), but not "realistic".

Just like Hulk flopped because of cell phones.

The thing that bothered the general joe average audiance is the situations that were placed in there that might have been a bit graphic for some viewers

By the way, for spoilers it's just |spoiler| text |/spoiler| replace the | | with [ ] and there you go
to say the least.

General audiances don't typically want to see all that in a film. I think it might have been a bit much for some.

Everyone read this post. This movie was fairly successful for what it is. Trying to figure out why nnot everyone went to see it? how about...it opened in January, it starred Ashton Kutcher, and its an R rated time travel movie. I don't think this movie ever had a chance of making much more in the way of money, and this level is quite successful.

I'd imagine the movie got way more of a critical slagging because of Kutcher than the movie's realism or whatever.

The thing is that the graphic content wasn't advertised. So that's not what kept people away (although it probably hurt word-of-mouth).

Perhaps it was "too disturbing" for moviegoers.

Disturbing is probably the best way to describe it!

Anyway Groucho is right with none of the content really being advertised ahead of time. The trailers completely made the film look like a by the numbers studio joke at a drama....& I was planning on avoiding it. Since I though "he wins the girl over by the end"..since it looked like that was all it was about.

Then again it IS nice to not know what to expect ahead of time,as that makes it a big surprise. Yet at the very least,they should do some better marketing. So we can at least know to expect a light or dark film,even if the exact content is not disclosed until we are in the theater.


I am going to try to catch a 7:30 p.m. showing tonight. Hopefully it will be desent.


Also filmratings.com now has The Directors Cut listed! So at least we know it will be coming to dvd when released(unlike all those promises Lions Gate makes & fails to deliver on). I do know what the darker ending 'may' be,since someone posted the original script ending. If that was filmed,man it would be too much for audiences to handle!

This seems to be one of the biggest splits between critics and moviegoers (at least the "type" who frequent DVD Talk) I've ever seen. We seem to be almost unanimous in liking this film (although few of us, myself included, think it's a great work of art). I think the critics (in general) were simply too turned off by the unpleasant situations. I would have been also if they had been in there just for their own sake but I think they integrated well with the story and were not gratuitous.

I really think these critics missed the boat on this one and the movie will be held in higher esteem ten or twenty years from now (sort of like John Carpenter's The Thing which was not liked by critics when it was released and now is held in quite high esteem by most of them). Both of these films are ahead of their time albeit for different reasons.

I wouldn't use the word realistic.

It takes realistic tragedies like and ends up exploiting it because it's only used as a plot point.
The film has dark subject matter, best not suited for people under 17. It's a shame the film wasn't written very well.

My biggest beef with the film is how small minded it is (a lot like the ashton himself) In other time travel movies when events are changed it seems to have a bigger effect, and on other things and people around the main characters.
In this film ONLY the main characters are affected. Um, ok.

Example...



I suppose that's not enough reason to dislike a movie, but it's dissapointing. Considering that the movie is slow moving and repetitive at times, which I like. But there was room for a bigger picture. And perhaps a way to make the dark subject matter seem more important and not just a tacky way move the plot along.

I should add that I liked the first 45 minutest. A lot more than the second hour.

The film has a nice look to it, too.

**1/2

i still need to see this flick...

I wasn't bothered by the graphic images/situations that were portrayed. I just thought it was horribly acted.

Everybody likes or dislikes films for different reasons.

While I wouldn't compare it to The Thing on any level, I agree with what you saying. The Thing today is deemed by both critics and fans as one of the best sci-fi horror movies of all time. I don't think this film will garner such acclaim, but I admit it was good. I ONLY saw it because there was nothing else to see in theaters. I was pleasantly surprised.

I agree with everything you said here. I also was almost scared away by all the negative reviews and saw it only because it was the only thing out there that looked like it might be marginally worth seeing that we hadn't already seen. On the other hand, I saw The Thing back in 1982 before reading any reviews, thought it was an amazing movie and then was flabbergasted when I started reading all the negative reviews.

Yes, in fact my wife told me to go see another movie when she heard i was interested in this one.

1982 was not a good year for films in regards to treatment by critics. If I remember correctly, TRON, THE BLACK HOLE, THE THING, BLADE RUNNER were all lambasted by the critics and all were financial failures except TRON I believe. Now all are considered classics in their own genre.

The Black Hole does suck. :)

But it was released in 1979. :)

The Black Hole does not suck!



Wow, I just hijacked a Butterfly Effect thread with Black Hole talk. :)

As I said before, even if moviegoers were put off by Butterfly Effect, New Line is making millions off it and will make millions more once the film hits DVD (probably July, just like the writers' Final Destination 2 which was released at the same time frame last year... which made $50 million domestically on a $20 million budget).