L'effet papillon 2

I got to watch this movie "The Butterfly Effect 2" in the theater last month. Not too much expectations, since it is a sequel and the stars are unknown. Just wanted to see how they would update the interesting concept of the first movie. Well, Eric Lively is certainly no Ashton.

Erica Durance, while beautiful, did not have much to show in terms of acting. The beginning was very slow. The first part where their relationship was established in a very prolonged manner. However, once the "butterfly effect" scenes were underway, the midportion was actually very interesting. It is just too bad that it led to a very illogical and unsatisfying ending. Certainly could have been better.

Im guessing your looking at this based on the first which in my opinion rated a good 7-8 / 10, based on the originality, unknowns and the constant plot changes leaving you absolutely in the dark as to what was gonna happen next. This IMHO is a quite poor money making rip from the first. It follows the same plot line from the first based on time warps looking at past events but really lacks any real surprises and is kind of guessable. You pretty much need to see the first one to understand the workings behind this one completely but if you have seen the first one and found it amazing (almost donnie darko (ish)) then you will find this a very mediocre follow up. if you've not seen either i HIGHLY suggest you miss this one and watch the first. possibly stop there and don't bother watching this, it will only disappoint if you were stunned by the first. definitely not an improvement I'm sad to say after thinking the first was fantastic. Pity as i was hoping of soooo much from this film

I had great expectations for the sequel to one of my favorite movies. When I learned it would be direct-to-video I worried. Such fears were more than confirmed. This movie, to put it bluntly is terrible when compared to the first. The plot is nonsensical, and takes place around a boring office environment. The acting is frigid, there is little character development, and predictably leads the viewer to little enjoyment, and lots of confusion.

It would appear the director of this film has not even seen the first one, considering the frequent mistakes, and plot jumps.

Save your money, skip this one. This possessed such great potential, but suffered such terribly delivery

Watching this movie, I really liked how it began, it had quality actors, the mechanics of the movie seemed to vary from the original, giving it a bit of uniqueness. I really liked the feel the director gave this film. Watching it I thought it had a lot of potential, and could very easily have a better story than the original, but then it starts unreasonably accelerating.

The movie was 75 minutes long. It's like I saw the condensed version. Did they cut the budget on this movie during filming? I've seen episodes of Smallville with bigger budgets than what this must have cost.

The Butterfly Effect 2 isn't really a sequel: besides using the same basic concept—a young man discovers that he can change the past, albeit with disastrous consequences—it is entirely unconnected with the original movie. This time around, the unfortunate sap who alters history to his detriment is young businessman Nick Larson (Eric Lively): after inadvertently twisting time to prevent the death of his girlfriend Julie (Smallville hottie Erica Durance), Nick tries to use his new found ability to change his life for the better, but only ends up making matters much worse.

As the Final Destination series has proved, the same premise can be used time and time again and still result in a hugely entertaining film. Unfortunately, Butterfly Effect 2 doesn't manage to pull off the same trick, failing to emulate the dark tone of the original, Nick's unsuccessful attempts to climb the corporate ladder hardly making for gripping viewing. And with the central character becoming less and less likable with each new time-line, the film actually makes one long for the involvement of Ashton Kutcher (did I really just type that?).