Critical Group Think

Rating: Null/10 (5 August 2004)

(this refers to the director's cut DVD, which has a different ending)
I am amazed by the group-think often displayed by major film critics. Mediocre, boring films get universally praised, and some tight little gems get universally panned. "The Butterfly Effect" is an example of the latter. Here are some common complaints of the film according to the critics.

Ashton Kutcher was horrible. ***I think he did a fine job. His style is very natural and believable. And it fit the role pretty well. He is genuinely likable too, which is a plus in a grim film as this. Sure he's no Olivier, but it works.

The film is too downbeat. ***That's the idea. The critics seem to forget however, that it was not gratuitous, even though its 'R' rating would have allowed for much more graphic imagery. It's a grim film by design, and its tone is consistent.

The plot is outrageous. ***Sure, it's not the least bit believable. But is "The Return of the King" believable? "Butterfly" is a Supernatural Thriller. It's fantasy world with its own unique rules: 1) Evan could return to a previously blacked-out event if he read the corresponding journal entry and concentrated really hard. 2) Upon entry to the past, he maintained his adult persona, and had full control of his previous self. 3) Whatever changes he made only seemed to effect himself, three childhood friends, and his mom.

Within those rules, the film is amazingly consistent. If you piece together Evan's "Quantum Leaps" with its alternate present, you will notice startling fidelity to the rules. Certainly more than other "changing the past affects present" films like the Back to the Future series.
This could have been a nice little money-maker that encouraged courageous story-telling. But the critical panning killed its chances.