The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
57 Reviews
Sort by:
Well-plotted thrill ride, but with a predictable twist.
Faisal-Hashmi23 March 2009
Warning: 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.
62 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not too Shabby
digitalmaleficus1 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.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Low expectations equals surprising results
tikileelee12 January 2009
Warning: 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.
73 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
really enjoyed this surprising sequel
marvingardens2430 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.
43 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't believe any low reviews. A great mystery movie.
fast_eddyv325 October 2011
This one is at least a 6 or 7 out of 10 by any standards. I think it's as good as the first one in many ways. Possibly, even better. I enjoyed it throughout and I was engaged the whole time. It has flaws like any other movie but you probably won't notice most of them. I didn't. I think it could have used a few more minutes of run time explaining some of the different character's pasts. But I think that left me wanting more in a good way. So I can't complain. I like rap music but in some spots of the movie it seemed a little out of place. Not a big deal though. The bartender totally makes up for any issues you might have. Trust me.

I can't really comment on anything more without spoilers so just give it a shot.

I would recommend it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
this one actually has a story
ipop073 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..

37 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Some efforts but a bit short of a great flick
jerry078 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).
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's a time-paradox that this movie even exists...
Playbahnosh30 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.
70 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very good, despite what some think or would think
TheBlueHairKid30 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!
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A pretty decent recovery after a bad first sequel
Nozz4 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 is 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.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Flawed but Entertaining (12 October 2009)
Claudio Carvalho16 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")
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A fantastically, enjoyable film!
Sam Micel11 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
So I have just watched 'The Butterfly Effect 3 Revelations' and wow! What an amazing film.

The film is based about a man Sam Reide (Chris Carmack) who can time travel and makes his living helping cops identifying murder's but when he goes back in time to his girlfriends murder he can't help but intervene, which leads to more horrific events through the film.

From start to finish I found my self entranced, watching trying to figure it all out. The film is confusing and it does make you think a lot! But I do believe that it was intentional trying to put you in the shoes of the main character.

Its a film that gives you everything that you expect, blood, gore, nudity, a great plot and storyline and fantastic acting especially from Rachel Miner who plays Chris Carmack's psychopathic, mass murdering sister. Not saying that Chris Carmack himself was a bad actor, he did an excellent job of showing major dramatic chops.

I went into the film expecting to be confused, I came out of the film feeling concluded and liberated! A fantastic film!

I would give the film a 8 out of 10 and defiantly add it to my top 100 favourite films.

Sam Micel
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad, but instantly forgettable
limiz8718 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was entertaining and sometimes kept me on the edge of my seat, but I must admit, only a day after watching it, it's hard to remember this movie. So I believe that in a week I will forget that I have ever seen it.

The plot was overall good, but the ending was so predictable due to the lack of characters and it was easy to choose the killer: it was either the guy himself or his sister. And if you guessed that it was the sister, you knew how the movie would end. Also, the last scene of the movie was totally unnecessary.

I liked the acting - I can't remember a single actor/actress who did a bad job.

Watch it if you like the idea of jumping in time and you expect 90 min of decent entertainment.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good, but could be better.
Shahmeer J24 August 2014
Good movie, but not a great one. Not one of those movies that make me sit down and imagine myself in the protagonist's shoes. The first movie was thought provoking, during and after the movie. I came up with dozens of tricks and possibilities that I would have pulled off if I was in Sam's place. Revelations was thrilling and well directed, but it did not utilize the possibilities of time travel to its maximum potential, nor did it clearly display the 'butterfly effect'.

COMPARISON WITH THE FIRST MOVIE: -In the first movie Evan went back in time with a plan. However, in Revelations, Sam was clueless and clumsy every time he jumped back. There was no apparent purpose of his time travel and it would become obvious that things were not going to end in his favor. -Revelations did not have as many plot holes as the first movie. But that was only because we were not aware what Sam was doing at the time he traveled back. In the first movie, we knew exactly what Evan was doing and were familiar with the scenes.

WHAT I WANT FROM A FUTURE BUTTERFLY EFFECT MOVIE: -The original concept of time travel be kept,i.e, the protagonist can only travel back to certain life events. -The audience should be intensely familiarized with each of these events. -The time traveler experiments with his abilities to analyze and memorize every piece of information at these events. -The violence be dimmed down a bit so more people can watch it. -The time traveler THINKS BIG. It is annoying to see that such a powerful ability is used for petty issues, compared to what can actually be accomplished.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you love a good movie, don't search anymore
DeanWin29 March 2009
I rarely review movies, but this ones deserve it. This movie will be certainly forgotten, and i think 90% of the world population doesn't even know it exists. Its an awesome thriller based on time travel with a great story. The acting isn't top notch, but the story is so good and well put together, that you wont stop watching the movie. Story follows Sam, a young guy with a gift: he can go back in time. In his normal life he uses his gift to go back and identify killers, rapists and other perps. But one day he breaks one of his rules: he intervens and thanks to that, he alters time line. Its a really good movie, i can even say, better than the original and way better than the second. Only one complain: those hip hop, rap, i don't know musics, they are awful. Thankfully, they are in the movie like 2 minutes.

Go and watch this movie.

18 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An awesome addition, arguably better than the first.
MCharke19 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
(Warning: Minor Spoilers) Trilogies are usually predictable. The first one has to be pretty good for the trilogy to exist. The second isn't quite as good and the third goes down hill from there. Occasionally, as is the case with Final Destination, the second movie is as good as the first and the third slips a long way. In the Butterfly Effect we have the rare exception. The third movie is arguably better than the first, and considerably better than the second.

This movie is nicely complicated but the plot is still easy to follow. And what a plot it is. The maze of temporal changes is just delicious. What's more, the temporal twists and turns avoid the tired clichés. You expect the obvious to happen and it simply doesn't. This is such a welcome break. Despite the changes Sam makes to the past, most of the present stays relatively similar. This movie even avoids the cliché it is named after, where a small change in one place creates huge changes elsewhere. The Nazi's never show up in this movie, no matter how much time travel takes place – thank you! The plot is fantastic and much effort is made to befuddle the viewer as to who the killer in this murder mystery really is. At the same time plenty of legitimate clues are included. I must admit, because I was braced for a bad third movie, I expected one of the obvious choices to turn out to be the killer. I was greatly impressed with the ending.

Like the first two movies, there is a theme that time travel is bad. However, it is downplayed and overshadowed by how cool and functional time travel is. What's more, time travel provides all the solutions for this thriller, although the director can't help but include a final terrible cost.

The time travel brain damage is placed nicely in this movie. It threatens to overshadow everything and ruin the movie with a tired cliché and then backs off and vanishes. The movie also has a rather adult homage to Ground Hog day. This and plenty of gore give the movie its rating. Sam sleeps with an inviting young lady and then time twists around so they don't know each other any longer.

The dialogue is well written and really drew me in. The time travel genre is rife with cheesy lines that easily could have been used. This movie manages to deliver some age old time travel scenes in a new way, going so far as to use a Scooby Doo reference that was both horrific and funny.

Like many movies, I would have liked five more minutes but instead, it leaves you wanting more. This is probably a good think, heck I know it is. It was the perfect time for an ending. Anymore and you would expect a second shoe to drop. While the director does leave a loose thread for a sequel but the movie wraps things up so nicely and it's so well done, I just don't see anyone pursuing that kind of cheesy angle for any further movies in this series.

I can't believe this movie did not make it to theatres locally. Unfortunately Final Destination 3 and Butterfly Effect 2 put a lot of nails in the time travel movie coffin. Having just watched S Darko and the 2009 Land of the Lost, this is definitely the best time travel movie this year and in the last few.

Mark Charke
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another surprisingly entertaining DTV sequel for the most part.
callanvass18 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The Butterfly Effect 3 is nowhere near as good as the outstanding original or even the solid direct to video sequel, but it certainly manages to hold it's own, and kept my interest throughout. The movie manages to give us quite the intense going back in time scenes, with Sam trying to fix everything, and not only that it constantly keeps you guessing on who the killer truly is, I even kept thinking it actually would be Sam. For a DTV movie, they did really well with what they could for the budget, and there is a couple of really nasty scenes that not only managed to shock me, but impress me highly as well. Chris Carmack makes for a decent lead who we can somewhat sympathize with, so that was good. The ending has a really great twist, that I honestly didn't see coming, and I usually always guess these kinda endings, but it did a good job at surprising me. It's nothing outstanding, or even anything i'll ever watch again, but for what it was I got a decent amount of thrills from it, and that's really all I can ask for.

Performances. Chris Carmack makes for an OK lead. He's nothing brilliant, but he holds his own most of the time, and I was able to root for him on many occasions. Rachel Miner does very well as the Sister Jenna. She's unpredictable and I dug her.

Bottom line. Buttefly Effect 3 is a fairly entertaining time waster that I liked. I love time travel and anything to do with it, so perhaps that's why I dug it so much, I don't really know. Still give it a whirl on a cold rainy night, it'll do the job.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Death repeats itself.
moviewizguy11 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After discovering that he has the ability to travel back and forth through time, Sam Reed becomes a law-enforcement affiliate who aids the police by using his skills to identify killers. There's one golden rule of his practice: whether on purpose or by accident, don't alter, interfere, or interact with anyone, as the results could change the future forever. Reed breaks that rule in an attempt to help his murdered girlfriend's sister find the perpetrator. But with each attempt to fix what he's altered, he only finds himself in a deeper mess.

Who would've known a direct-to-DVD sequel would rise another direct-to-DVD sequel? After all, these second-rate casts and second-rate scripts surely don't attract people into watching these movies...or do they? This third film in the Butterfly Effect franchise may not be as bad as you think, which is both encouraging and unfortunate, I suppose. The plot in here is actually good because it's different from the first two. The first film was a good movie by itself. The second was just like the first but on a much, much (much) smaller scale.

However, the third is quite different. In fact, unlike the first two films, there aren't many consequences here. The protagonist's life doesn't really change so much which is great, in my opinion, because there's no more repeat. The story, however, is more like a serial killer/Saw-type movie with very gruesome death scenes, one very random and quite graphic sex scene, and one jaw-dropping scene in the end that matches the second movie's "gay blow job" scene. There's also a very contrived twist ending that doesn't really blow your minds away because it's too contrived and trite like many twist endings that tries too hard to surprise people.

But other than that, the movie is interesting enough, on a very small level. The girls get all the eye candy they want from lead Chris Carmack while the guys get all the guts and gore in the death scenes. I also liked the end...very much, which is quite surprising (I'm not talking about the twist ending). For a direct-to-DVD threequal, the film is surprisingly decent, but that's not saying much because our expectations are just too low. The performances were decent and the end leaves you very satisfied, unlike the depressing ending from the first movie. If you're a fan of this series, go ahead and watch it. If not, don't bother wasting your time in a second-rate movie.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad at all!
Rostislav Mitev13 November 2009
Well, the first movie was a hit - no doubt about it - intelligent, profound and engrossing. The second one - I didn't watch it, but considering the overall comments it does not worth it. The third one however - "The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations" is not bad at all! It's nothing you could call "original" or "innovative", but it succeeds quite well in giving an interpretation to the idea of time travel and the consequences of alteration of past events. Tha acting was really a good surprise to me - especially that of Chris Carmack! The plot runs at a logic pace - not giving away too much, nor confusing. Sound, wardrobe, makeup - all the details were observed. All of that makes this movie a good sci-fi triller. Not a masterpiece, but a descent movie. I would recommend it to all who love science fiction!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The side stuff is better than the main plot but worth a look see
dbborroughs6 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
One of this years 8 Films to Die For concerns a young man who can jump back through time, a gift he uses to try and help people. Unfortunately when he tries to help unravel his past things often get radically changed in ways he never intended. Good little thriller is something you'll want to see once since once you get to the end there really isn't a point. I liked that there is a bit of intelligence involved with the film. the dialog is smart and the reasoning behind what happens is reasonably well thought out. If there is a problem its that the central story isn't as good as the things its wrapped in. The story of our hero trying to unravel a murder and finding more occurring as result just doesn't hold up as solidly as everything else. If I could watch the side bits again with out dealing with the central story I'd gladly watch this again, right now I don't see the need. As it stands now this is a good little thriller that should have been better. Worth a look.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I Liked it..
danny mania27 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Yup,this was far better than the second one.Well,this sequel thing is a tricky business,and the second butterfly effect movie was an example of that.they missed the trick there and the movie was a big flop.But this time they ALMOST got it right.It wasn't a perfect movie,wasn't better than the first one but still was worth spending time watching it.Pros and cons,well,as we know every science fiction movie has a lot of both.I personally always evaluate the movie by analyzing its pros and cons.This time,the pros were more than the cons.This movie had a good plot with a teasing sense of suspense that keeps the audience guessing.The biggest con was the ending,they try to show us that the kid(Jenna)was the bad person but they leave it unexplained and this movie would have had a better ending without this Jenna's second coming.All in all,this is definitely a good one,cheers mates.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No Blockbuster but entertaining till the end
paul david30 December 2009
I cant remember the first two in the series, so long since I have seen them, though I did see time travellers wife on Sunday (does that count?). I actually watched the film through twice (which I often do) because its easy to miss things in this movie. an earlier commentary is probably right' see the first thing and be satisfied. This is not a great movie but it does hold suspense and intrigue and does keep you8 entertained until the end. the opening scene of the woman and child being battered is gruesome but we need to spend more time on working out Nicks relationship with the Brown sisters and what his neurotic sister is really up to. but the first clue we really get is when they confirm in conversation that they 'jump, there we go, another time travel movie if I remember (or was it jumper). anyway, the fire thing could have done with more explaining and the big guy but Nick hangs out a lot at the Bar and he knew the guy well and even better the barmaid! wow, what tattoos and how unlucky for her to miss out on the action. Wouldn't bother with number 4 though, draw the line at this one, though the actual ending of the film was a nice twist.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Breaking the rules
gridoon201818 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Butterfly Effect 3" seems determined not to copy the original film slavishly like the first sequel did, and it is indeed sufficiently different to hold your interest. The side (or should I say the butterfly?) effect of that is that its concept of time travel is less internally consistent than that of the previous two movies: here, the hero sometimes goes back to places he's been in the past by getting inside his younger selves' brains, and sometimes, if he concentrates hard enough, he goes back to places and times he's never been in, which means he time-travels physically and not just mentally. Perhaps because of these inconsistencies, the film successfully puts across the feeling of displacement that a few too many mind / time trips can cause. It all leads to a twisted but rather predictable revelation. Warning: some of the violence is exceedingly grisly. **1/2 out of 4.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good continuation of the initial idea. Surprisingly well directed and acted... Rewatchability: High Blu-ray: Very Good A:9 V:9
lathe-of-heaven23 August 2015
This one kind of surprised me because I was curious as to how they would work the basic theme of the original movie into this story. I think what impressed me the most about the film was the direction. I really liked a lot of the establishment shots of buildings, the skyline, and the city, along with some nice shots of birds in flight, etc. It REALLY added a lot of mood, I thought. Also, the basic structure and look of the film was done very well too. And, the acting was pretty decent all the way around.

I felt that they did a good job, too, in reworking the story with the basic element from the first film that we are already familiar with. So, this story seems like a natural continuation or progression of the story line. I also liked the older guy who appeared to be the main guy's mentor.

Some may feel that the ending was not quite as perfect as it could have been. But I think, considering how bloody DIFFICULT it usually is to come up with ANYTHING decent at all for sequels to low-budget Horror / Sci Fi films, that this one came out a hell of a lot better than most do. You end up with a pretty gripping and suspenseful story, and one that is believable enough to keep your interest until the end.

So, if you are a fan of Time-Travel oriented Sci Fi films, and you liked the first movie, and if you keep your expectations within reason considering that this is the SECOND sequel to a low-budget Horror film, then I think that you might find this one quite entertaining...

(Probably between a '6.5' and a '7', but since it nicely surpassed my somewhat low expectations, I nudged it up to a '7' :)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A confused time traveler, a tricky ending, a good story above all.
felixoteiza18 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Pretty good flick. Entertaining too and well structured. And one with some similarities with Identity in that it got both strong scientific (theoretical) bases and an end twist--or rather two—which may seem contrived while being completely legit. In Identity it was psychology, here is physics, or rather the paradoxes of time travel. Now, this is the first one I see from this franchise so bear with me if you have already seen the others.

The main theoretical difficulty for traveling to the past is that it may create impossible, contradictory, situations. The best known thought experiment about it is that of a man who goes to the past and kills his own grandfather, while this last is still a boy, so he won't have any kids; so the killer will not be born, so he won't be able to kill his grandfather. The solution to the paradox lies in the idea of an infinite number of coexisting alternate universes, realities, containing each possible outcome for each possible event. It's like a plot which starts with a man coming out of his house and: a) taking a walk; b) being hit by a car; c) taking a bus d).. All these secondary events--and the ones coming after, and the next, to infinity--are there, available, but it's only one, or rather one lineal sequence of them which constitutes what we call our reality, chain of events, History. (ex.: said man takes bus, goes to his office.) That's all you need to know to understand the plot of this movie.

Sam can travel to the past and change events and so change the future of people. He uses this gift also to witness murders past, tipping the police about the murderers. He has been warned also he shouldn't change things, as he'd change also chains of events. He did it once, when going back in time to save his sister from a fire in which she died. He saved her but at the price of losing their parents in the same fire. What torments now Sam is that his girlfriend Rebecca was murdered later by what seems to be a serial killer. He sets to find her killer after being begged to do it by her sister, who despairs that an innocent man will be executed for that crime. As feared, Sam makes matters worse when now both sisters are murdered, because of his intervention. The movie moves along this line of action, with Sam insisting in going to the past to repair things, only to make them worse, creating a bleak present for him and those around, against strong pleads from his sister. In that process, people who liked him now hate him, some are killed and then reappear alive and so on. Finally he uncovers the killer, but he's confronted then with the most heartbreaking dilemma of his life. He takes the right moral decision; he had no other choice, really, as his primary objective was to save lives.

This is mostly an action driven flick, for which the cinematography and the action just need to be appropriate--which they are. Little known actors fit well this kind of plot, as they'll just have to pretend they are in the given situation-no need to fill the screen, please. The pacing is good, the plot development impeccable. The tension and mood set in from the beginning and stay for the duration. Atmosphere is not something you'll be missing here.

But above all TBE has a very well structured plot. Some may feel cheated by the identity of the serial killer at the end, but they shouldn't. This isn't your regular psycho who murders to indulge in his twisted fantasies or for revenge for wrongs past but a human psyche who has regressed to savagery. This killer can be really seen as a wild animal in human form, which marks its territory and then attacks anyone entering it. That's why this murderer doesn't fit the usual serial killer profile. Also, don't fall for the simplistic "It was just a dream" formula as it seems to be used here. This one is trickier than that. The fact that both Rebecca--or her sister--and the parents are alive doesn't give us any clue, as it would have been so in any case. We don't even know if the sister really existed, nobody mentions her. Was it all just a dream Sam had while napping in the car? What we saw before that really happened? Are the actions of the kid at the closing a hint of reincarnation or, worse, the shape of things to come? Sorry, but no hints there; draw your own conclusions. 7/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews