The problem with this film is that apparently they didn't really know what they wanted to do with it, or more like, they knew WHAT they wanted, only not HOW. The idea is that Nick sees his power as such a thing and starts wanting to change details to improve his current life, perfecting every single thing. The idea sounds cool, since it had a lot of potential, but there are two things they didn't know how to handle:
1) Changes only one year ago can't POSSIBLY be as radical as changes done like 15 years ago or more, so the things remained the same and nothing really big happened, they COULD have used this to make things more dynamic, but they lingered TOO long in what little timelines there were when really there was not much to explore.
Because of this, Nick's few changes rarely lead him to situations as severely screwed up as for him to change things (in the 1st change he didn't know he lost a baby, and he can ALWAYS get a better job), and the problems with his changes are caused by HIM, not the HUGE factors of violence and abuse that Evan faced. This makes Nick less likable since he's stupid enough as to change stuff he shouldn't and when he does, he finds out he screwed up by himself. This takes out the cause & consequence thing which made the 1st so intriguing.
2) Also, apparently also because of 1), they took out the flashbacks of the changed continuity, and save for the restaurant bit (where he apparently is able to dig into the memory of his current self, like "jock" Evan did), he's oblivious to his current life. This makes us wonder what has changed, but they take too long to make a surprise of what little (predictable) changes happened, whereas in Butterfly 1, we had glimpses of how stuff changed but were still left to wonder how radically things had changed, especially since there were many factors and people that could change.
All this leads to him making an Evan-like move, that's ok, but it's way out of context, makes sense only if you REALLY make it, and was not properly motivated. This film might have been saved if they made one or two more timelines showing WHAT was the problem in all his changes, and if it indeed WAS himself they should have emphazised more that he needs to take HIMSELF out of the picture. The DC of the 1st film, albeit in a more fantastic way, made this point and it both worked and was solved perfectly.
Still, this film has its props and if there is such a thing as a DC, i'd have a lot of faith in it, since maybe within it resides what this film needed.
reply
share