Typical, incorrect cliche right there, horror movies don't have plots. That's only true for the bad horror films, which I obviously don't care for. The good horror films have plots that are equal, and occasionally better then a damn fine drama.
The fact that you made such a broad, incorrect generalization about an entire genre of film shows you probably don't have much experience in said genre.
Anyway, what's there to understand about the movie? a guy goes back in time to try to stop his girlfriend from dying. Real complicated.
I never said that horror movies are plotless, man. I was implying that you can't be too critical of "Butterfly's" plot, no matter how seemingly lame it may be, because most "horror" movies aren't exactly cerebrally provoking. BTW, I'm pretty well versed in all genres of movies, including horror, and plenty of them live up to their stereotypes.
As for the movie, do yourself a favor and just go see it. Then, you can form a valid opinion, because your assessment is off.
As I said, teh only horror films that have lousy plots are the lousy horror films themselves. That goes with ever genre though, horror is no exception. Teh good films have plots that are more creative and unique then most drama's. They just aren't witnessed by many people because unfortunately, the popular horror films are usually the crappy, mundane ones that revolve around random murders with no suspense whatsoever.
as for the butterfly effect, here is the plot outline from imdb.com.
A young man (Kutcher) travels through time to change a disturbing past, but finds that the changes alter his future in unpredictable ways.
Sounds pretty typical too me, and it's pretty much what I thought the plot is. I don't need to see the movie to pass judement on it, that plot alone is typical and generic, plus ashton is a horrid actor who can't help but look like a braindead druggy. I'll see it when it comes on tv, as I do with all the movies that i feel will be generic, which is what I think this movie will be, if even that.
Soooo...if it's so typical, what other movies has there been where someone goes back in time to change something for the better, only to have something else go wrong. Then, in the end, make the ultimate sacrifice, so that nothing in his past ever happened at all?
None, which is my point. Like I said, your pulling things out of thin air, because you don't know, because you haven't even seen the movie.
It's a very original and untypical plot, actually. I'm sure you're not the only one letting some prejudiced assumptions keep them from seeing a grossly underrated movie such as this. And I mean that in a nice way.
It's just a shame that people aren't giving it the recognition so many feels it deserves, while you have shit like "Lost in Translation" garnering false praise, although it's actually a totally worn and rehashed story.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Feb 10th, 2004 at 02:25 AM
Well, just about every time traveling movie has something like that in it. Not to mention an episode of the simpsons where homer goes back in time, and the smallest change to the past effects the future in profound ways. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure if I thought about it I could think of many other stories that revolved around that simple device. It really isn't anything new at all, the idea has been around for decades, there just hasn't been a recent major film that has had that plot.
I see I'm not the only one too see this premise as quite normal in science fiction films. Ebert had this to say about it in his review of the film...
"The only problem is, he then returns to a present that is different than the one he departed from -- because his actions have changed everything that happened since.
This is a premise not unknown to science fiction, where one famous story has a time-traveler stepping on a cockroach millions of years ago and wiping out humanity. The remarkable thing about the changes in "The Butterfly Effect" is that they're so precisely aimed: They apparently affect only the characters in the movie. From one reality to the next, Kayleigh goes from sorority girl to hooker, Evan zaps from intellectual to frat boy to prisoner, and poor Lenny spends some time as Kayleigh's boyfriend and more time as a hopeless mental patient."
The story of Lost in Translation isn't what made it unique, it was it's style and the way the characters were developed. Not to mention the wonderful acting.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Feb 10th, 2004 at 02:49 AM
Bill Murray played a dejected, has been actor. That's just art imitating life, man. It was just a boring movie. Unhappy old man meets unhappy young woman. They ***** about how unhappy they are, sit around at the bar forgetting they are in freakin' Japan, and drink. Then, they get to be friends, smoke pot and sing karaoke ( cuz those crazy Japs love karaoke!) and ultimately avoid having sex. Audiences are supposed to applaud their loyalty to their spouses?
It wasn't funny, and if it were, it was contrived. No romance, just blatant cheating, and then there's the "open to interpretation" ending thats supposed to hold some significance.
It's just so, so overrated. Relationships like this happen all the time at summer camp. Guy meets girl, they like each other, possibly change one anothers lives, then they go their seperate ways.
Bah. Bill Murray has had maybe 3 good movies in the past 10 years, and he'll once again prove to everyone he's a has been once "Garfield" drops.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Cinemaddiction> I personally don't care much about the butterfly effect, but I think the idea of going back in time has been beaten like a dead horse. Movie like "Back to the future" in which time traveling has humor in it, delight movie goers because is a comedy. But when you look at movies that involve time traveling like "12 monkeys", "The Time Machine" (the remake, not the originial) and "Timeline", then ppl get bored with the idea. Something fresh and creative must be made, but if the same mentality of trying to change the past continues in movies, ppl will continue to look down on these films.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on Feb 10th, 2004 at 11:52 PM
My friends dragged me into this sad excuse for a film. This film was terrible,terrible,terrible And then TERRIBLE. As was pointed out above from Bf, There was nothing to this movie, just a bad actor moving through time. With over acting, an empty dialogue, and No script ,the movie hacks apart an actuall interesting scientific theory for a redundant movie that goes no where. Does it really take an entire hour of a bad movie to get the point across that you can't change the past? I would sacrifice one of my lungs to get back the time i lost watching this peice of mainstream trash. The only thing this movie accomplished was securing the fact that we are going to have to experience more ashton kutchar bull shit
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
The time travel / paradox theme was definately not a new idea. But this movie entertained me very much. I began to feel for the main character. He was in a few hopeless situations and managed to work his way out. 8/10
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: I wish he would have stopped her on the street at the end. Everything was finally right.
That's true. He would have changed history and had those scars his entire life. His cellmate would have said something like "What's your point? You've always had those."
Overall, I loved this movie! Sure, the idea isn't original but it's still a great movie.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 9th, 2004 11:00 PM
Attachment: 
