Butterfly (1982)

Admirable film.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

A decent film with some awkward dialog telling a powerful tale of the price of honor. Stacy Keach is Jess Tyler, an isolated ranch hand type who is visited by his beautiful teen-age daughter, having not seen her in 10 years. Pia Zadora plays the sexy and seductive girl a bit amateurishly, but then some of her lines are simply laughable so it may not be her fault. If she'd had more confidence and experience she might well have told the director (Matt Cimber) "I'll say these lines but they'll make me vomit in my mouth." She's convincing as an incestuous lolita and slowly played against Keach's lonesome cowboy, the story does raise some heat.The setting is appropriate, the sun-baked and barren lands of the desolate South-West. The characters fit this rustic setting never exceeding a rural kind of sophistication. Yet aside from the questions of production, this film raises a important issue. Jess Tyler is recognized by virtually anyone he's had dealings with that he's the most honest and honorable man they know. This meme is repeated often enough to make it a central issue. Yet, when he discovers that he might be able to finally consummate his hands on and mutually adoring relationship with this lovely nymphette, his honor seems to disappear in the hot lava of his lust.Indeed, it's easy to lay claim to honor when it's never tested against an ultimate desire.

This is a movie with a history that is bound to bring out her fans or call out the hounds.Pia Zadora is very beautiful and sensual in the role of Katy, a young woman in need of a man that loves and cares for her. Having grown up without a father and having been hustled by men who used her for their pleasure, she is seeking a strong male figure. After returning home to her real father, she becomes confused about the different boundaries that society has established for the love between a girl and her father, and the love between a woman and her lover, and thus intertwines the two. Pia Zadora turns in a convincing performance. She's at ease before the camera, is always expressive, and acts and delivers lines as well as most. Stacy Keach is equally convincing in his roll. And Orson Wells? Well, after all, he is Orson Wells.The plot was good and moved along steadily. It has a really interesting ironic twist near the end that is sure to take you by surprise, and leads directly to the odd and convoluted climax of this film.After the claimed shenanigans involving Pia Zadora's winning an award for her part in this film, it seems to me that many reviewers were outraged at the thought of such a dirty deed as buying the award, (if that's even what happened). It looks like to me that buying an award proves to them you're no good as an actress? One couldn't possibly buy an award and deserve it too, could they? Perhaps because they took those accusations as truth, their own sentiments kept some critics from ever giving Pia an honest look. And frankly, it seems to me that the same negativity from critics has followed her all the way to the present as reviewers still love to pile on Ms. Zadora who is a talented and beautiful lady. That's exactly what I suspect after I watch this film and then read what others have to say. I think they are really wrong about this film, and about Pia. It is a film that is surely worth watching and would be much more widely acclaimed were it not for reviewers who either can't or won't be objective. If you're even a little interested in "Butterfly", I say you owe it to yourself to watch this film and make your on decision about the merits of the story, the acting and the whole package. It is well worth your time.Now for the answer to the title question, What's really wrong with "Butterfly"? Of course, nothing is wrong with "Butterfly".

Is it Citizen Kane? No, but it does also feature a wonderful performance from Orson Welles. That and a beautiful song sung by star Pia Zadora over the end credits. Admittedly the film drags a bit, and features a somewhat implausible storyline. It's definitely not for all audiences because of those elements.Nevertheless, Matt Cimber created a thoroughly interesting and entertaining film in 'Butterfly'. It's certainly worth at least one viewing, if anything simply for the credits song "It's Wrong For Me To Love You" and Welles' delightfully over-the-top turn as Judge Rauch. Ennio Morricone's haunting musical score also complements the intrigue of the film's events quite nicely.

It's not an atrocious movie. It's just a little dull except when Pia Zadora is waltzing around in the nude -- or in the semi-nude, which is all the time.Poor Stacy Keach is the lone guard at an abandoned silver mine in the middle of the desert, living a bearded sloppy life in his cabin, when his daughter Zadora, whom he hasn't seen for ten years, descends upon him with her sexual elan and grabby adolescent ways. And, boy, is she a terpitudinous slut. When they first meet in 1937 rural Nevada, Keach doesn't recognize her and tells her that whatever she's looking for, he hasn't got. Her first line of dialog in the movie: "How can I tell what you've got if I ain't seen it yet?" And this is her Daddy she's talking to. Later, after she's been slinking around for a while, she asks him: "Don't it get lonely out here in the desert, or is milking that cow enough?" She steps buck nekkid into a bath tub and asks him to wash her back, then guides his ministering hand down her frontal aspect. Not to worry, though. There isn't much nudity and the frisson of incest is an illusion.Pia Zadora was a singer and became an actress by means of being married to an influential husband but she's not THAT bad. Her talent is about the same as that of a performer in any college play. And she has a tiny but bewitching figure. If the director had had that amount of talent, we would have seen more of her agreeable frame.You might have the impression that this is a soft porn film or some kind of "erotic thriller" but it's not. The story is by James M. Cain, a pulp writer of some note at the time, who also gave us some major noirs like "Double Indemnity." But this murky and confusing story of abandoned gold mines, immoral liaisons, and court trials isn't his native territory. Erskine Caldwell, maybe, could have handled it with aplomb.The award for best performance goes to Orson Welles as a cranky mountain of a judge. He plays the role for its comic effect, which is entirely apt because the film is best appreciated as a comedy.Stacey Keach can be quite good in the right role. He was fine as Martin Luther and Ernest Hemingway. His default facial expression is a kind of sour, open-mouthed, dumbness. That was good enough in "Fat City, where he's a somewhat worn-out aging pug, but this part calls for a little more animation. There are some other recognizable names in the cast and they all perform professionally except that lightweight James Franciscus really belongs on television.The climactic courtroom scene is a little hard to follow and sometimes ludicrous. Keach (and perhaps Zadora) are up on charges of incest, based on the account of a single eyewitness who saw them smooching before entering a cave. That's what's known as a "weak case." All the defendants had to do is deny that it happened. They could easily have done it since no one saw them having intercourse. Kissing your nubile daughter on the mouth and feeling her up? Just an excess of fatherly affection, that's all.Incest is a curious business when you come right down to it. It's a universal taboo with no obvious function. Exceptions are reserved for hereditary royal families -- the Inca, the Hawaiians, the Ptolemys of Egypt. This notion of a child born of an incestuous union being deformed doesn't hold too much water. Cleopatra was the result of twelve generations of incestuous marriages and whatever else she was she was not deformed.Well, anyway, I found the thing rather slow and not very interesting.