IMDb > The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 49 reviews in total 

58 out of 73 people found the following review useful:

Well-plotted thrill ride, but with a predictable twist.

7/10
Author: Faisal-Hashmi
23 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went into Butterfly Effect: Revelation with very low expectations, especially after the mediocre sequel. But it is a surprisingly well-plotted and thrilling puzzle of a movie that has it share of great moments, but the twist can be guessed by most and it changes up the rules of the first two.

We follow Sam who lives whose girlfriend Rebecca was murdered 5 years ago. Like the previous movies, he has the ability to travel back in time to key moments to gain some new information and sometimes even alter the past. He uses this to help the FBI catch killers beforehand. Only this time, the movie adds a few new elements: 1)Sam can travel back to ANY moment in the past, whether he was present there when it originally happened or not. 2) He doesn't need to use journals/pictures to travel back and can do so at his will anytime. 3) A few more but they are spoiler territory.

But once he gets the information that the killer who is behind bars for Rebecca's murder is wrongly convicted, he decides to break his own rule of not altering his own past to travel back to the night of the murder, but through a mistake creates a serial killer for the world.

Unlike the second movie which had a large amount of plot holes and ridiculous decisions by the protagonist, this one is for the most part well-plotted, presented as a puzzle piece instead of a traditional thriller, and creates suspense by adding the element of guessing the killer's identity. It has a lot of thrilling moments, particularly in the last half hour. Unfortunately, the twist the movie tries to pull is predictable in the movie if you are paying attention. Although that doesn't mar the experience, it ruins the element of surprise. Also, some fans of the original may not like the changes to the rules of the first. The actor's did a surprisingly good part in the movie. The dialogue was good, although the little attempts at humor failed more than worked.

Overall, this is a recommended thriller, especially if you are a fan of the original. It tries to do something different by adding the element of a serial killer into the mix and gives the protagonist much more stake in the movie rather than just saving the life of a loved one. If only it wasn't for the predictable twist, my rating would be higher.

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 103 people found the following review useful:

Low expectations equals surprising results

8/10
Author: tikileelee from Deep beneath the earth's crust
12 January 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

To say that expectations are low for the third installment of a franchise that was fairly woeful to begin with is a pretty massive understatement. The original "Butterfly Effect" starring Aston Kutcher was more a vaguely interesting concept masquerading as a feature film than a fully-realized story. Butterfly Effect 2 is an inept pile of cinematic garbage that was only made because the same German audiences that go apeshit for David Hasselhoff also think that Butterfly Effect is the "Citizen Kane" of Aston Kutcher time-travel movies.

And, lastly, "Butterfly Effect: Revelation", the anchor of Horrorfest's 8 Films to Die For festival, has had such a lackluster marketing plan that it was nearly impossible to find out when and where it was playing until a few days before it opened.

So as the lights dimmed at the 10:00 showing of "Revelation" at Mann's Beverly Center Cinema, the odds were that it was going to be a long night.

But then a funny thing happened. The movie started and it was actually pretty...good. Okay- it was clearly made on a pretty small budget and there were some of the edges were a little rough, but generally this was a pleasant, if not elevated, genre movie with some good scares, at least one standout performance and an interesting take on a series that was worn out before it began.

Unlike its predecessors, the most surprising thing about "Revelation" is that it actually has a story and fully-realized characters.

A disturbing cold open murder in a Detroit park sets a gloomy tone and introduces us to Sam Reed (Chris Carmack) who callously watches the murder take place from a safe distance.

We soon learn that Sam possesses the power to jump back anywhere in time in his own personal past. Unlike the protagonists of the previous two Butterfly Effects, Sam uses this power not to change the circumstances of his own life but for a tidy paycheck from helping Detroit police to solve cold case murders.

This by itself earns the film, penned by up and coming screenwriter Holly Brix and directed by equally rising filmmaker Seth Grossman, a gold star over the previous efforts in the franchise.

The Kutcher version at least had novelty going for it even if it was missing a story but the second film is simply a remake of the first with an unknown cast and director.

Brix's script, while not perfect, is miles ahead of its predecessors in terms of creating a film that is more plot than gimmick. Grossman's direction is interesting as well but flawed. Some very nice moments in the film are undercut with overlong scenes and sloppy editing. Several times in the movie I caught myself mumbling the word "cut" to myself with increasing urgency. Good lines of dialogue that should have ended the scene were lost in unnecessary further expository jibber jabbering by the actors.

As the film goes on we're introduced to Sam's sister (Rachel Miner) who is both his caretaker when he is having his time traveling out of body experiences and his ward as an emotionally fragile, sardonic shut-in. Miner's performance nails a character really well and when she's on screen the movie really comes to life. Miner, best known for her relationship to the Home Alone kid, shines in this movie to the extent that she overshadows Carmack's heavy-handed take on his character. This appears to be a problem with the direction or casting as the acting is frequently uneven but Miner proves that all of the performances could have been better. Although spotty, Carnack manages to pump out a few scenes that reach an authentic emotional quality.

Sam soon learns that someone else is jumping into a mutual past and changing events faster than he can. Soon he is a suspect in the murders that he formerly helped solve and the real killer is closing in on him.

The killer's identity is well concealed until it is very close to being revealed at which point it seems the filmmakers had run out of red herrings to use as distractions.

Overall, however, "Revelation" is a pleasant surprise against such radically low expectations and, while it is not "Citizen Kane" it is an entertaining genre movie with some great writing, decent direction and an inspiring performance from Miner.

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

really enjoyed this surprising sequel

8/10
Author: marvingardens24 from United States
30 March 2009

I was a huge fan of the original Butterfly Effect, although I liked the concept more than the execution. When Ashton screamed, "You don't know me! I don't even know me!", it made me remember why certain actors should stick to lightweight material. I had very low expectations for this one, mostly because the second movie was unwatchable. Aside from a couple of problems, I was pleasantly surprised.

First, the problems: This movie has nothing to do with the original or the sequel except that the Butterfly Effect power is SIMILAR -- not exactly the same, because in this one the main character Sam travels by just focusing on the past, and his sister Jenna monitors him, but then he seems to forget the intervening years when he returns to the present. The other problem is that sometimes characters and relationships are unclear and a couple times I had to ask my wife who this person was or why this person thinks that now, but she understood it pretty well and felt that the confusion was intentional so that the audience would feel like the main character, who's really confused by all the time travel.

The two leads in this one -- which probably couldn't get big stars because of its low budget -- were both outstanding. Chris Carmack shows major dramatic chops. I can see him being the next Viggo Mortensen. Rachel Miner is also really great, and so are the minor characters, especially the well-endowed bartender. (Was that a visual reference to Catholic Schoolgirls in Trouble, from the Kentucky Fried Movie, or am I reaching?) There were a couple of strong dramatic scenes that wouldn't have felt out of place in a studio Oscar-bait type of movie. I guess that's a credit to the writing/directing too, since it didn't feel overdone or hammy.

The cinematography was also solid, and I liked the score. Usually movies like this skimp on those elements and just use a cheesy synth score, but this one was solid.

My only complaint about the cinematography is that sometimes it felt claustrophobic -- we're always inside someone's apartment, or in some dark, cramped place. I guess that fits with the theme, but I would've liked to be able to breath every now and then with a nice landscape shot or something. Maybe that was also a budget issue.

Overall, although I didn't see this movie in the theater -- it was out for a week, apparently - - watching it at home felt like I'd caught a really cool late-night TV show. It's a fun ride. I could see this turning into a TV series or something, like Quantum Leap.

Was the above review useful to you?

62 out of 110 people found the following review useful:

It's a time-paradox that this movie even exists...

3/10
Author: Playbahnosh from Hungary
30 March 2009

I saw the first two movies of the series. The first one was pretty good, the second one was a disaster, and I didn't think that there could be even worse... I was so wrong.

Butterfly Effect 3 has virtually nothing to do with the first two movies, except the "going back" thing. There is no backstory, there is no introduction of the characters, there is some confusing plot, that revolves around time travel, but that does not save it from being a "meh." Basically, Butterfly Effect: Revelation strikes right into the middle of the story. cutting away all that was good about the first movie. It capitalizes on time travel paradoxes, and how changing the past changes everything. A very vague and used premise, that has been killed by many other awful movies. This film doesn't help either.

If you really want to get the most out of the Butterfly Effect, watch the first movie, and the first movie only. Trust me, you won't miss a thing.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 53 people found the following review useful:

this one actually has a story

8/10
Author: ipop07 from Canada
3 April 2009

I'll start with saying that I saw the first two films and while the first one actually caught my attention (reason why i watched second and third) I actually enjoyed it, second one was really just interesting to watch see what else the character does and how it changes the present, the third has not much background information on the characters, borrows no info from the first two, it just starts in the middle of the story. Most people say that is wrong but if they were to cover everything they would need a whole series. I would normally know about the launch of the movie but like everyone else, I have not heard and commercials or anything promoting the movie, I kind of stumbled upon it.

The acting I thought it was pretty good, especially Rachel Miner, and in spite of being a low budget film, it accomplished it's goals quite well. I had not seen the plot, I wasn't expecting it and I thought it was quite good actually. All the changes that Chris Carmack makes during his "jumps" are quite interesting and the way they change the story as well.

If you just want some good entertainment, watch it, even with its not so good parts, it still falls into the first 15% movies in the world especially with all the crap (don't even know what else to call it) that has been coming out lately...

Enjoy and drop a few words so others can benefit as well..

peace&love

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Not too Shabby

7/10
Author: digitalmaleficus from United States
1 April 2009

Well lemme just say I've seen the first movie of the series and was semi impressed, but more confused.

Never saw the second one. Just watched the 3rd.

Let me just say I honestly was intrigued through pretty much the whole movie. FOcused around 'time travel' but not in the traditional 'got a special machine sense'.

Based around a number of grisly murders, where the main character is attempting to 'witness' or even change the course of events by finding out who the killer is. I have to say I was curious to find out who it was and even though the discovery moment of the movie was kinda a weak climax for such awesome horror foreplay I have to say I went away generally satisfied. Not too bad of a twist, but then generic at the same time. However the overall experience is very entertaining.

I recommend watching it. The acting isn't bad for the most part and while the movie seems really confusing at first, if you pay attention it actually makes sense at the end.

Check it out, not for anyone but I'm sure a lot will get a kick out of it.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Flawed but Entertaining (12 October 2009)

6/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
16 October 2009

Sam Reide (Chris Carmack) has the ability of traveling to the past and works to the police department solving unresolved crimes, witnessing the events with the support of his sister Jenna Reide (Rachel Miner) and reporting the criminal's identity to Detective Dan Glenn (Lynch Travis). When Rebecca Brown (Mia Serafino) that is the sister of his former girlfriend Elizabeth Brown (Sarah Habel) that was murdered a couple of years ago pays a visit to him, she tells that she has just found Elizabeth's journal with evidences that Lonnie Flennons (Richard Wilkinson), who was accused for the murder, is innocent. Sam decides to witness the murder of Elizabeth and his interference affects the future. He travels to the past other times trying to fix his mistakes, but every time he returns, the future is in worse condition.

"The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations" is flawed but entertaining, but is not a sequel of the two first movies. The only thing in common is that the lead character can travel to the past and every time that he wants to fix and event, he messes up the future. The story has many inconsistencies and paradoxes and is not difficult to predict the conclusion. The IMDb User Rating is very fair in the evaluation of this movie. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Efeito Borboleta: Revelação" ("The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelation")

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

A pretty decent recovery after a bad first sequel

8/10
Author: Nozz from Israel
4 April 2010

Someone should go back in time and replace the worthless Butterfly Effect #2 with this one. Like lots of other viewers I had very low expectations, I was just a fan of the premise. But as soon as the music starts, you have to say to yourself, "Just a minute, there seem to be talented people involved here." The biggest improvement is that the hero is not a mere whiner, he's a guy with determination, he's an altruist, he's a crime-solver. That said, the actor playing him suffers from the disadvantage of a fashion-mannequin face.

As sometimes happens as a premise becomes more and more familiar to the audience, it becomes more and more commonplace in the fictional world as well. (How many people turn out to have survived the destruction of Krypton by now?) So in this movie there is an old master time-jumper who presumably has any number of disciples by now. I think a movie is stronger when the hero isn't alone with his superpower, but I suppose it's impossible to make a lot of such sequels with different heroes.

Others have remarked that the sex scene jumps overboard from the movie; I'd like to add that if you're keeping track of the script, you realize that the scene is important to the plot but that it is supposed to be over with very quickly; the way it goes on and on may have added commercial value but it turns a bit of the movie into nonsense.

Aside from that, thank goodness, the plot does hang together and does carry us along, the ending is solid if not entirely unpredictable, and although time-jumping seems to have become not only more commonplace but much easier than in the first film, the portrayal of a person's struggle to alter the ostensibly inevitable, and the consequences of that struggle, makes #3 a legitimate contribution to the franchise, and I'd say quite a favorable contribution. These guys are good.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Very good, despite what some think or would think

8/10
Author: TheBlueHairKid from Canada
30 March 2009

I haven't seen Butterfly Effect 2, and a lot of people had said that Butterfly Effect was terrible - though I'd thought otherwise.

This movie however, much unlike the original offers a main character seasoned in the ability to gain control of his past self (Its not exactly time travel). Not to mention he is also completely aware of the changes made in time.

The movie is done SO WELL, and very fun to watch because it doesn't include the 'WTF?' attitude Ashton had to have for the first movie. Instead it goes at a decent pace and if anything makes you want more! I'd also like to make a comment on other postings stating characters 'Don't Make Sense, because they have no explanation'. Its asinine, that somebody couldn't put together that Goldburg is simple somebody that helps along the main character.

Either way, its rent able, buy able, and best of all watchable!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Some efforts but a bit short of a great flick

6/10
Author: jerry07 from United States
8 December 2012

Have to say, loved the first Butterfly Effect movie and decided to watch the second which everyone would agree is a total disaster. This third one worried me but I gave it a try. It ended not to be the best flick ever but has at least has some storyline. In fact, the movie even has a tiny bit of a surprise as the plot deepens and end to be a fine movie. The acting is not bad at all (Sam Reide character is well enacted and Jenna tend to appear as a believable sister character).

So in truth, I may even go to say that if you are looking for a easy to understand SciFi movie genre (making some sense), you will probably be entertained by watching this sequel. Do not expect a follow-up of the first however (theme theme but no real relation).

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history