Butterfly

Another film based upon a book by James M Cain and, naturally, another controversy. Cain's work always tended to focus upon emotions running high and passion, particularly, sexual passion, being exploited for another's gain. Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity also exploit these human frailties (qualities?) but they never encounter quite the derision heaped upon this fine film. Strangely, enough, a most faithful interpretation of the book, just lacking the sticky claustrophobia of the original's interiors. Obviously this is disliked because of the way the 'incest' scenes are played but it is, as they say, only a film and this is not meant as a an advertisement but as an exploration. Worse things than this happen as we well know and to fall over ourselves to throw the first stone at a movie seems crazy. Especially if it has one of Stacy Keach's best performances, a great and most convincing one from Pia Zadora (who deserved her Golden Globe newcomer award) and at least an interesting late appearance from Orson Welles. Super cinematography, competent direction, fine score from Morricone and great steamy story. What's not to like?

I give this a graceful 8/10 because I 've watched so many crap films in my life that got 10/10 from all the morons at IMDb. This is a film that deals with incest in a crass way. But how does the rest of society deal with incest when at the very least about 1/70 girls are abused by members of their family in private? Not well at all, actually worse than in a crass way. So how do we expect a film about incest as a western to be? As freud said, it's the ultimate taboo. Pea is wonderful here, Orson is drinking his .. off and it shows, all in all a great movie not to be missed, but it will be, because it's not even out on DVD.

This is sort of a classic in the sultry, steamy sensuality arena, as it was defined early in the 1980s. Pia, like Laura Dern and others did later, appears in alluringly sheer hot weather clothes that will keep most red-blooded males captivated! These are all the more captivating when set in the early part of this century.

Once again, as I write this, I gotta tell ya, I saw this on the "Z" Channel in Los Angeles in the early 80's. I had three emotions while seeing this..one was, "This is messed up" then laughter, and one more was: "Pia Zadora isn't THAT bad of an actress."

You see, it WAS the 80's. Pia had an on screen "something" that with the right vehicle could have given her a decent film career. Leading Lady? No way. The second or third important female role? You betcha. Such as "the wicked sister" or "the backstabbing girl friend" roles, with the type of stuff that was coming out then. She could have been a "cheap rent" Jane Seymour type in films playing those rolls. But she got this one...and it wasn't that great. The story was all over the place, the sexual tension was laughable and...very confusing at times. This film is bad, but top 200 bad, not top 50 bad.

The gosh-awful script didn't help ANYONE in this film. It was bad. There is a bit of "camp" film quality running through this film at points, not enough to make it a "good-camp" film to redeem it. A lot of misguided areas here, a hodgepodge of a story and a lot of wasted talent.

Thank goodness for all involved, there was a paycheck waiting for them at the end.

Pia Zadora was not the worst actress of 1981. Nor was she even close to giving a bad performance. This unknown actress in her mid 20's was able to dazzle the audience with her sexy charm. Let alone, act opposite both Stacey Keach and Orson Welles. That alone is a spectacular in itself. For those haters who shun this movie, I agree. It's a weird movie with weird characters. Still, its better than half the crap Hollywood is making today. This fact along with the fact that people are still viewing this movie, gives a strong defense that Pia did a good job and that this movie is worth the watch.