M. Butterfly

M. Butterfly_720p(480P)

On paper, this movie looks like it would be good, however it never gels. The secret of Butterfly is no secret to anyone except Irons' character. There are huge holes in the story and I never felt connected or got a good understanding of any character. Though Irons, a top rate actor in my opinion, does as good a job as possible, it isn't enough to make this at all involving. For Cronenberg, who also directed Irons in the magnificent, Dead Ringers, this is a low point in his career. Irons, on the other hand, went on to do Die Hard 3.

SPOILERS!!! This might be a great story reading out of a book, but the movie is poorly done. Now I know Jeremy Irons loves to do such movies, but I wonder if he knew it was gonna turn into a disaster? Bad casting for John Lone. And I love John Lone (not emotionally since I'm a guy... lets say really like) mostly from his work in The Last Emperor. And awesome epic (directors cut) The gag is up for the audience folks who know how John talks. I didn't even need to know John was in it to close my eyes and figure that out. So it was excrutiating for me to watch this. Unlike The Crying Game where many people didn't know it was a girl. (Hell I was fooled big time. Though she was kinda cute on the soundtrack case. At the time I hadn't watched the movie. Boy George's song was really good and was totally clueless.) But in this movie she's obviously a guy. As much as our movie teacher wanted us to think it was a good movie. I don't believe so. (Course it's his opinion as is mine) Just admit it...John Lone can't cut it as a guy. At least this movie came before Lolita... so Irons had some redemption. I tend to watch controversial movies since I feel it's my first amendment right to do so. (I refuse to watch Eyes Wide Shut until the real version is released. I dislike what ABC did to Diamonds Are Forever. By digitally adding underwear to this woman simply because her panties were too shear. o_O) This movie is also rushed. There is no transition from the first half to the second half. As if they had two short shows and mashed them together. This movie is not believable. You can't tell 20 years had past. Some movies at least try. (In the name of the father. Heck the transition between Breakfast CLub and St. Elmos Fire shows an age difference just within a few years. I really don't appreciate it when they rush a movie. (The remake of The Avengers is the worst I think) So I really can't recommend this to the guys. For some reason I see, the women like this more than the guys... so I can't speak for the females. But guys.... if you ignored my spoilers warning. Stay the hell away!!!! 4/10 Quality: 4/10 Entertainment: 2/10 Replayable: ????

It's a good movie ,in my opinion as a Chinese girl,though there are some obvious ridiculous errors.I have not seen any intro about this film before my watching,neither a poster.I found it because I like the opera of Butterfly and I mistook it as the adaption of the famous opera.At the beginning of the movie,I was so confused that when Gallimard fell in love with Song-because,it's very apparent that the "actress" of Song was a male guy!And,from a Chinese view,John Lone was too stocky to play the role of a eastern girl.-If a Chinese girl was like that in appearance ,she will be the butt of others.However,anyway,John Lone was so great an actor.His appearance has no similarity with a girl,but his manners, expressions,and tone are very very similar to a Asian felmale.Can't believe it. About the story of the film,I have little to think.Anyway,it's a novel that a child how to make and ruin a colorful bubble.All of us have to experience some destroyings of good dreams.The story was only one of them .Many of us think we found the one of ideal,but it turns to be a joke in the end.It's life. The great value of the movie ,I think ,is that it showed what a big gap between the different group of people exists in this world.Over several centuries,western people were imagining the scence of the mysterious ancient east,including the people there.However,...it's hard for a west to penetrate the east...I think.There are too much imposed on an east person,including man ,and woman.

A French diplomat named Rene Gallimard is living and working in the China at the time of the Vietnam war. He goes to see the famous Chinese opera Madam Butterfly and instantly falls in love with the woman playing the lead roll. They start an Affair but the woman Song Liling is so modest that she won't let Rene see her naked. The affair is short lived when the Butterfly as he calls her and their new born baby are taken away by the Communists, and Rene is sent back to France and his wife Divorces him. Several years later Song shows up again and tricks him into stealing government documents so as she says they can get their child back. Than some of the weirdest things ever filmed takes place, but the weirdest part is that it is all true, or mostly true some of it we will never know for sure. The performances are wonderful particularly by Jeremy Irons as Rene. He plays him perfectly. But the real best part of the film is David Cronenbergs direction which is some of the best ever. A wonderful movie,

Having read the play, I felt that the movie was incredibly lacking. None of the complicated themes of the play really came through. And I don't think it was possible, since the play is so... unusual. Not just in the story and themes, but also in style.

In general, the movies of David Cronenberg haven't tended to appeal to me. M. Butterfly was better than some of his work I've come across but it still disappointed me. I will give credit though to Jeremy Irons, who put on a fabulous performance in the lead role of Rene Gallimard, a French diplomat in Beijing, China in the mid-1960's who becomes entranced by an "actress" named Song Liling, who he meets at the Beijing Opera. Song was also played quite brilliantly by John Lone (you have to watch the movie to understand that bit of casting) and the chemistry and sexual tension that Irons and Lone managed to create was excellent. Having said that, the movie itself I did not find especially captivating. The first two-thirds of the movie or so are essentially a rather ho-hum quasi-espionage story, as Gallimard begins to reveal secrets about U.S. plans for Vietnam to Song, who in turn passes them on to the Chinese authorities. This led to what I thought was a pretty tame depiction of the Cultural Revolution. The last third of the movie then switches (rather abruptly, I thought) to France, where Gallimard is tried, and Song (now obviously a man) testifies at the trial. I was uncertain throughout what Song's real feelings for Gallimard were, although their encounter in the back of the prison vehicle seems to indicate that the feelings were sincere. It all led up to a very bizarre (appropriate for Cronenberg) ending, in which Gallimard performs the story for fellow prison inmates, dressed as a woman. I found this a very difficult movie to rate, but a weak (in my opinion) story really drags a movie down, good performances notwithstanding. I'd say 4/10

Having never seen the play on which this movie was based, I was eager to see the film. The play had gotten some pretty good reviews. However, upon seeing the movie, I was very disappointed. I can't understand how the play won a Tony, unless it was much better than this film adaptation. It's the story of a man who loves a woman who is really a man. Sound familiar? Of course, the man is so infatuated with the Puccini opera MADAME Butterfly that he doesn't recognize that the object of his affections is actually a MISTER Butterfly (hence the title of the movie). Not exactly subtle. I understand Hwang has a message to make, but must he make it using the time-honored racial stereotype of the effeminate Asian male? As a Filipino-American himself, you would think Hwang would know better. There are some good things about the film. It is beautifully shot. John Lone(The Last Emperor) and Jeremy Irons(Reversal of Fortune) are two excellent actors who do their best with the material. But overall, I was let down. I give it a '3'.

I don't know why this movie didn't get more attention than it's supposed to. I like the two main actors both, who I think had a wonderful performance in this movie( although I keep wondering whether it will be another masterpiece if Leslie Zhang took Chung long's position in this movie.) For those who love this story itself, you will definitely agree how this movie perfectly described a story which tells " only in real life could love become so unreal." Also this is a good movie to watch if you are interested in the type of movie which entangle east and west, love and betrayal, passion and illusion...

M.Butterfly was originally written for theater and I was quite intriqued when I saw the movie advertisment, I wanted to know how the story was going to be conveyed because I had a role in a production of M. Butterfly, which had been a memorable and an ego-boosting event (As I was only 15). I do not find that the characters were ambiguous, they were clear as night and day both in theater and in the movie.My prefernce goes to the theater production. And i disagree that M.butterfly is a story of love and loss, it was about a man who dreamed of the perfect woman and when that perfect "woman" came he was enchanted, he knew the truth all along but refuses to face up to it because he did not want to ruin HIS perception of HIS butterfly (him as the strong dominant western man and the "woman" he loves as the delicate oriental "lotus blossom")