Butterfly (1982) Online

This is a movie that would have been good as the "B" film at the drive-in. You could tell from the beginning that it was a movie made for television. I worked extra on the set, and Orson Welles had a bottle of wine behind his podium as he did his judge shtick. He drank so much he would forget his lines, and he abused the cue card holders something fierce. After awhile, we ungrateful extras were yelling, "He will drink all wine before its time!" Cruel, but we were frustrated. Stacy Keach was a consummate professional, however. He acted as though the movie was "Citizen Kane." I have had great respect for him ever since.

Once again, as I write this, I gotta tell ya, I saw this on the "Z" Channel in Los Angeles in the early 80's. I had three emotions while seeing this..one was, "This is messed up" then laughter, and one more was: "Pia Zadora isn't THAT bad of an actress."

You see, it WAS the 80's. Pia had an on screen "something" that with the right vehicle could have given her a decent film career. Leading Lady? No way. The second or third important female role? You betcha. Such as "the wicked sister" or "the backstabbing girl friend" roles, with the type of stuff that was coming out then. She could have been a "cheap rent" Jane Seymour type in films playing those rolls. But she got this one...and it wasn't that great. The story was all over the place, the sexual tension was laughable and...very confusing at times. This film is bad, but top 200 bad, not top 50 bad.

The gosh-awful script didn't help ANYONE in this film. It was bad. There is a bit of "camp" film quality running through this film at points, not enough to make it a "good-camp" film to redeem it. A lot of misguided areas here, a hodgepodge of a story and a lot of wasted talent.

Thank goodness for all involved, there was a paycheck waiting for them at the end.

This is sort of a classic in the sultry, steamy sensuality arena, as it was defined early in the 1980s. Pia, like Laura Dern and others did later, appears in alluringly sheer hot weather clothes that will keep most red-blooded males captivated! These are all the more captivating when set in the early part of this century.

Another film based upon a book by James M Cain and, naturally, another controversy. Cain's work always tended to focus upon emotions running high and passion, particularly, sexual passion, being exploited for another's gain. Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity also exploit these human frailties (qualities?) but they never encounter quite the derision heaped upon this fine film. Strangely, enough, a most faithful interpretation of the book, just lacking the sticky claustrophobia of the original's interiors. Obviously this is disliked because of the way the 'incest' scenes are played but it is, as they say, only a film and this is not meant as a an advertisement but as an exploration. Worse things than this happen as we well know and to fall over ourselves to throw the first stone at a movie seems crazy. Especially if it has one of Stacy Keach's best performances, a great and most convincing one from Pia Zadora (who deserved her Golden Globe newcomer award) and at least an interesting late appearance from Orson Welles. Super cinematography, competent direction, fine score from Morricone and great steamy story. What's not to like?

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.

Is this film ever going to get a DVD release? Even a cheap, quick release? A film this bad deserves to see the light of day, so aspiring film students can watch this and learn what not to do. Like, say, the creepy "Oh, I'll wash my daughter's back while she's taking a bath" scene. I haven't been able to find this movie at any used VHS store; it's time to put this legendarily bad film to DVD. If for no other reason then to see Welles in the sunset of his career and Ed McMahon actually acting, instead of being Johnny's sidekick or giving people massive checks for Publisher's Clearinghouse. And Pia Zadora, Thespian. Come on Criterion Collection, your public duty to unearth this wretched gem for a whole new generation to explore awaits you!

Adaptation of James M. Cain's book "The Butterfly" won Pia Zadora a Golden Globe for Most Promising Newcomer before anyone had even screened the film, setting into motion an awards-show controversy that is far more interesting than anything in this movie. Shabby potboiler has a sexy teenager in 1930s Arizona reuniting herself with a man who may be her long-lost father; that doesn't stop her from seducing him, which leads to dirty doings, a murder, and a final act in the courthouse (with Orson Welles as the judge!). Co-screenwriter Matt Cimber also directed the picture, but he fails to create a depiction of this time and place that is half-way realistic, preferring to let Zadora's sexual antics carry the load. She isn't terrible, yet her cameo in "Hairspray" a few years later far exceeds anything she does here. *1/2 from ****

Featuring an outstanding Orson Welles in his last performance on camera, this is an interesting story with a very good twist in the end. Rex Reed loved this film when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, you have to give it a chance, and you'll see one of the sexiest bathtub scenes ever put on film!

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".

Butterfly (1982)

** (out of 4)

Based on the James M. Cain novel, this film centers on the young Kady Tyler (Pia Zadora) who returns home to live with her father Jess (Stacy Keach) and soon she begins to seduce him. Yeah, you read that right. Zadora made history with this film as she won the Razzie Worst Actress award while at the same time winning the Golden Globe New Star of the Year award. You can read about the controversy behind the Globes win elsewhere but to say this film is normal would be a very big lie. BUTTERFLY isn't nearly as bad or as trashy as its reputation would have you believe. It's not a soft-core porn flick if that's what you're expecting but more of a romantic mystery that probably shouldn't have been made. Those coming to the film to see how horrid Zadora is are also going to be disappointed because I really didn't find her as bad as the film's reputation. It seems she just became a punchline after winning the Golden Globe and while she's certainly not great or even good here, there's no doubt that she's taken way too much heat for the performance. I thought she played that dirty teenager well enough for a film like this. What she lacks is certainly made up by Keach who is actually very good here. I thought he did a very good job at showing the conflict that his male/father character had over the sexual advances of his daughter. Another person who's "bad performance" reputation is somewhat of a lie is that of Orson Welles who plays a judge. I really didn't find him to be bad here and in fact I thought he was quite good and that his performance certainly had a wink to the viewer to it. The film falls flat on a few levels including the running time, which just goes on way too long. The screenplay itself just doesn't have enough interesting moments to help keep the thing entertaining from start to finish. Another problem is that director Matt Cimber just doesn't add enough spark or energy to the picture. BUTTERFLY will probably always been known as a disaster but I think its reputation is quite unfair. It's not a good movie but there are certainly much worse out there.

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.

1st watched 3/6/2010 -- 3 out of 10 (Dir-Matt Cimber): Laboring tease-fest with Pia Zadora winning the Golden Globe for newcomer of the year as a daughter of a miner who enters into his life and causes all kinds of havoc. The best part of the movie is a comical performance by Orson Welles as a judge gathering up all the facts at the end of the movie and giving a hoot of a performance(that definitely fits the film!!). The basic storyline is that Pia's character visits her father, played by Stacey Keach -- teases him sexually, and then finds out about a possible motherload of silver in a mine that he guards. They then try to harvest it(illegally, of course)for profit until Pia's fiancée comes into the picture trying to get her back. From here on there is sex, violence, murder and other mayhem followed by a courtroom scene to sort out all the pieces. Zadora's performance is pretty bad even though Keach does an OK job as the put-upon father. How Zadora got a Golden Globe I'll never know?? Anyway, this is really a pretty trashy piece of film-making that should be avoided, in my opinion, unless you want to get a peak at Pia(which is pretty much all you get).

A few years ago, this showed up on everybody's Ten Worst list. Then with the explosion of videotape, giving people access to hundreds of really godawful movies, Butterfly kind of drifted off into obscurity.

It's time to bring it back to the front. This movie seriously reeks. Pia Zadora has as much business standing in front of a movie camera as Judge Judy in a thong. I've seen classier emoting in the vice-principal's office. Sensual? Actually, she looks like a legal secretary who ate a bad clam for lunch, and her face is puffing up pretty bad. Let's face it, her acting peaked in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians; watch carefully, and you'll see her flash the camera, thankfully revealing nothing whatsoever.

Stacy Keach tries to maintain his dignity, James Franciscus gets the only good bit in the movie as a spectacular slimeball, and Ed McMahon shows up at one point playing a rich, drunk Irishman - make up your own joke.

But it's the script that makes Butterfly worth renting, worth owning, and worth demanding on DVD. This is one of those rare bad scripts that thrusts itself into the forefront past bad actors, bad direction, and the most ludicrous costume design since Myra Breckinridge. Seek it out, invite friends over, and everybody can slam a brewski every time the camera zooms in for an overlit shot of Mz Pia looking up into the lens and slitting her eyes (that's "expressing deep feeling"), or Stacy Keach making a strange face like he just caught something dreadful in his zipper (so's that).

There's a whole generation out there who never heard of James M. Cain, and it's our job to get the Truth to the Youth.

Pia Zadora is the perfect sexy nymph. Ennio Morricone provides a score that rings a bell because it almost sounds like a"spaghetti western". Stacy Keach as the lusting daddy is fine, and Orson Wells comes across as a curiosity. The problem lies with the script. At first things take their time, introducing characters at a leisurely rate. There is a slow buildup but little idea where the movie is going. Then suddenly the pace quickens, and logic begins to fly out the window. In the end there are unresolved issues dangling uncomfortably, a ridiculous legal unwinding, and the viewer is left holding a very large bag of questions. Nudity does not a movie make, and "Butterfly", despite the titillating bathtub scene, is rather unsatisfying. - MERK

Butterfly is a low quality film, with poor acting and script. Though watchable for its dissimilarity and setting.

Funny to me that it's labelled a crime/drama, seems they didn't want to label it anything else. The ending is perplexing and absurd. Orson Welles is amusing as the judge.

It's been 20 plus years since I watched this masterpiece. I disagree strongly with the trash talk by the general run of reviewers who are blinded by this film's brilliance because they're shocked... mind you shocked to find European standards applied to an American film. I was riveted from the first frame to the last... and feel that Pia certainly deserved her golden globe... and for Orson, the final act was his greatest. In the end, Butterfly is an artistic effort by a fine ensemble that left me wordlessly wandering the streets of Port Townsend rejoicing that Hollywood had not completely sold out to the censors and bigots who had been squelching creativity in American cinema since the implementation of "the Hollywood production code" that had seemed to forever have doomed Hollywood's efforts to second-rate melodramas.

A nice sleazy noir film based on a JAMES M CAIN novel that I read a long time ago. STACY KEACH plays a silver miner living alone in the desert wilderness. the arrival of his long lost sexy daughter KADY (PIA ZADORA), born of a cheating wife who left him for another man, arouses intense sexual desire between father and daughter. But then, is KADY really his daughter? What about the butterfly shaped birth mark on his daughter's kid that is similar to the one on her stepfather?

This is a great film of place. Places like NEVADA and its incestuous inhabitants do not seem to inspire Hollywood anymore. The score by MORRICONE is very memorable. I love films with such rural American characters.

One drawback - ZADORA was not sexy enough. But KEACH is a solid actor. There is ORSON WELLES who acts as the judge who holds a trial when father and daughter are accused of incest. The director MATT CIMBER seems to have made a career out of making such sleazy films. I recommend it.

(7/10)

I give this a graceful 8/10 because I 've watched so many crap films in my life that got 10/10 from all the morons at IMDb. This is a film that deals with incest in a crass way. But how does the rest of society deal with incest when at the very least about 1/70 girls are abused by members of their family in private? Not well at all, actually worse than in a crass way. So how do we expect a film about incest as a western to be? As freud said, it's the ultimate taboo. Pea is wonderful here, Orson is drinking his .. off and it shows, all in all a great movie not to be missed, but it will be, because it's not even out on DVD.

My comment is not so much about the movie as about those who call the "bathtub scene" sexy. This was supposedly an incestuous scene and it is somehow sexy?

As it turns out there was no incest, but the characters thought there was.

And the man was tried for it.

The movie may have stunk -- though Cannes loved it, Rex Reed loved it and Pia Zadora was never so good (yes, well) -- but at least a predator was portrayed having to answer for his crimes. Sort of.

One wnoders what Orson Wells and Stacy Keach were thinking. They both had careers. But then Mickey Rooney was in some hortrible movies, as well.

It's been too long since I first watched this movie on cable; but from what I remember, it seemed kinda erotic. Then again, in the 80's I was a teenager, hungry for a glimpse of a chicks boobs, if nothing else. The whole "incest" thing disturbed me a bit, but I also remember the bathtub scene when she took Keach's hand and put it down between her legs....

... guess I'm still just hungry for a glimpse of a chicks boobs... if nothing else.

Was this movie really worse than I remember it being???

I'm almost afraid to watch it again, even if I COULD find it anywhere, for fear that it truly did reek.

Outright: Yes, long-legged child woman, elfin- faced Pia Zadora is worthy as Golden Globes' Best Newcomer 1982. Take careful note that the award says "newcomer" and doesn't focus on acting ability. Certainly Pia was THE most dramatic newcomer arriving in the flurry of excitement accompanying this movie's release. And listen to the interviews on the DVD... the accusations of "buying the award" are, IMO, false. Makes a great story which the press jumped upon, but it seems to be only public opinion. It hurt little Pia very much, and it was all fueled by envy, because the public were jealous of the pretty girl and the rich old guy who had his young wife cast in the movie he financed. These two people deemed not to defend themselves at the time, figuring "it would blow over" but then, as stated in the interview*, it didn't.

*Personally, I find DVD extras like commentaries and interviews generally to be one big bore, but I recommend BUTTERFLY's extras for getting to another exciting aspect, the back- story (especially regarding the Golden Globe fiasco)

I'm just saying, the movie deserves a chance. Even with its contentious subject matter. Which, when viewed without frothing at the mouth, comes down to: acts of passion between consenting adults. Why get the law involved in what goes on between two lovers? The law should hunt down violent criminals and stay out of private business.

Okay, about the movie itself now:

I had only seen a trailer I had downloaded, some of it was in slow motion or something like that, focusing on the initial Orson Welles court scene, and it looked heavy-handed and dumb. Fortunately great shots of Pia's angelic face did appear and I decided to go for it, but I had little hope for a decent movie, given this one's bad reputation and the downloaded evidence at hand.

I was surprised. I had hoped, and thought, maybe... but didn't go in expecting too much.

There is a heck of a lot more going for this movie than what you would suspect. Is it worth watching for Pia Zadora alone? Yes. She is a performer. Oddly enough, she is way older than I had thought, and some camera angles are even unflattering to her face, but as for the nude scenes, let's just say that there should be no complaints.

The movie works better before all the "ensemble cast" enters the scene. The first half is erotic and frothy fun, think of it as bubbly champagne, the second half is just a large swig of vinegar. Must admit that I commented to myself "haven't had this much suspense in ages" - I really felt for the Jess character.

Okay, the prudes and the embittered haters would love to tear the movie apart, and that is exactly what they did. Don't let them spoil it for you, watch it for yourself, and then decide.

Powerful performance by Stacy Keach which gains sympathy every second of the way. What the average viewer here is most likely not gonna get, is that Kade goes for Jess because he is gentle with her, touching her the way she wants to be touched. Not rough-and-tumble. Not knock the stuffings out of her. I think that counts for something.

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.