Problem One:
There is no explanation as to what is really happening. Evan Treborn (Kutcher) spends his life attempting to explain blackouts he had when he was younger, and when he finally figures it out, he doesn't let us in. One would assume that it is some sort of time travel, but it is never explained how, or why, or what the reason is that Treborn can accomplish this feat at the time he does as opposed to years ago or years later. Asking the audience to accept the fact that he can travel through time without explanation as to how would have been acceptable if the film had given us something else to focus on. This on top of all the paradoxes that time travel presents us with, and all of the sudden you have too much belief that the viewer must suspend.
Problem Two:
Never once does Treborn ever go back in time, and make things better. It should be assumed that if you can go back in time and do things differently, you could make the present better at least one on a while. On the contrary for "The Butterfly Effect", which holds its plot line of ever worsening situations in such high regard, that it strangles the potential possibilities of genuine thought until they die and become standard movie fare. I am not impressed by a film that wants to be original, but ends up so easily predictable. It's like a drawn-out filler episode of “The Outer Limits…” without the camp.
Problem Three:
The big problem is that there are other films on the market that explore similar subject material, but do so far better than "The Butterfly Effect". "Donnie Darko", the "Back to the Future" trilogy, and even the sub-par "A Sound of Thunder" are all more intelligent and successful movies.
"The Butterfly Effect" may be mildly entertaining in its own respect, and the performances of its actors are quite admirable. But this subject material obviously overmatches the writing abilities of the people who brought you "Final Destination 2". Bess and Gruber's "Cellular" was a far better flick.
comments
Lisa, firstly, the theory of the "Butterfly Effect" was in fact established by an MIT professor named Edward Lorenz in 1972, however it serves only to promote the idea of vast and unexpected occurences developing from small and seemingly unimportant events in a larger more dynamic system, such as our environment or atmosphere.
However, obviously, as it is not a feasible scientific study, time-travel was in no way a part of his studies. And as such, the simple theory behind the film is similar to Lorenz's theory, yet can not be viewed as the basis of the film.
Lorenz's academic paper was written in 1972, yet Ray Bradbury's fictional story was written in 1952, and is infinitely more close to the material than Lorenz's published theory.
I would appreciate the next time you decide to throw in your two cents, you do YOUR research, before you criticize our reviews. We understand our place and the importance behind constructing a well-informed review. And I am of the opinion that cutting down someone else's work, when you haven't a single clue what you're talking about, nor can properly spell the words needed to get your attempt at a point across, is far more pretentious than giving an informed opinion.
RSS feed for comments to this post