Hey folks, Harry here... The following is a review written by someone that was severely offended by the feature film called THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT. The film is a time travel story (much like SOMEWHERE IN TIME) given there is no apparatus for travel, but is instead internal. The person traveling is a victim in life, who has endured at witness unspeakable things and wishes to erase those memories and moments and realities. Among these things are child pornography, animal abuse and more... What happens to him in the modern day, becomes the reason for the title... THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT. ie... A butterfly flaps its wings and what it moves begins a hurricane elsewhere... For me, I'm actually fascinated by the moral indignation that is coming from this reviewer and curious about the film. However, you can bet there'll be a lot of folks that feel the same as Cinephile, it will be an uphill battle for New Line on this one it looks like....
Hi, Harry;
Consider this review a Public Service Announcement and an Open Letter to New Line Cinema.
I've been a longtime fan of your site but never felt compelled to write a review of a test screening, until last night when I suffered through the grotesque "Butterfly Effect," starring Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart.
Allow me to provide a brief synopsis of its nonsensical plot before I plunge headlong into why this film is truly disgusting. Evan Treborn (Kutcher) discovers he has the ability to access repressed memories from his childhood and alter the outcome of traumatic events; however, each time he changes something, he creates a "butterfly effect," which drastically rearranges his present.
Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and ignore how utterly preposterous this premise sounds. More, let's ignore the fact that "The Simpsons did it," to quote an episode of "South Park;" Homer, however, used a toaster, which seems plausible by comparison.
The film opens in medias res, as Treborn breaks into his psychiatrist's office at a mental institution and hastily jots down a journal passage; his entry ends with the tag, "I Couldn't Save Her." We then flash back to an overlong and morally reprehensible exposition. Treborn is a tow-headed first grader, who draws gruesome pictures in class and pulls a knife on his mother, Melora Walters (phoning in a performance with a really lousy connection). But, the 6-year-old claims he has no memory of his acting out. He simply "blacked out."
This is where the film takes a disgusting turn. Ms. Treborn drops her son off at a family friend's house, so he can be around a "father figure," played by Eric Stoltz; Stoltz's character has two children of his own, Tommy and Kayleigh. He's also a child pornographer, and the audience is treated to a scene of two topless kids (Treborn and Kayleigh) under the harsh light of a video camera.
At that point in the film, I couldn't have cared less where the film was heading. I was disturbed and aghast that any parent would allow his or her impressionable child(ren) to appear in a scene of simulated kiddie porn. It's irresponsible filmmaking, and New Line Cinema should be investigated for potential child endangerment.
The film continues from said point of no return with a scene that involves animal cruelty, as Treborn's dog is tied up inside a burlap sack by Tommy, doused with lighter fluid and set alight; granted, we don't see the dog being burned alive; Treborn blacks out again. No, the filmmakers spared us the horror of watching a hot dog BBQ -- how tasteful of them. We're only left with the image of the canine's charred corpse.
Now, I'm a fan of George Romero, Peter Jackson, and Sam Raimi, to name a few. I heartily enjoy low-budget horror films. But, the aforementioned directors took a more responsible approach to cinematic violence. Conversely, "The Butterfly Effect" is a well-lit snuff film for its first 30 minutes.
At any rate, the second act begins with Treborn, now in his early-20s, as a college student. It's been years since he's blacked out, but he's ultimately compelled to reread his boyhood journals and access his lost memories. That's when he begins making changes. The audience is also forced to endure a scene in which a mother and her infant are blown up by a stick of dynamite (off-camera...probably for budgetary reasons), and the stabbing death of 13-year-old Tommy. Even Treborn doesn't escape harm, as one of his changes leaves him a paraplegic with his arms severed at the elbow.
The tonal shift of the film at its midpoint leans away from what Roger Ebert would call "A Geek Show" and toward an uneven dark comedy. However, the audience is so exhausted from the film's emotionally draining first half, we're not in the mood to laugh.
Evan finally sets things right by the denouement, which is sweetened by Dave Matthews Band on the temp score. I wasn't moved. Why would I be? I'd simply remained in the audience for the purpose of lamenting the film on my comment card.
I've omitted much of the second half of the film in my critique because the movie doesn't necessarily build; it reboots. It doesn't get any better. It just reinvents how bad it is.
Ultimately, I fear that my review will not discourage people from seeing this trash, and their morbid curiosity will "put asses in seats." I feel sorry for those people.
Harry, it would please me to no end if New Line pulled this film, and they either re-shot significant portions of it, or burned the negative and blackballed the writer/directors. This is not "edgy sci-fi," nor is it "a suspenseful thriller." It's a valentine to pederasts. I encourage any other AICN posters who've seen this debauchery to join me in my campaign to block this film's release.
Yours,
The Cinephile
