What a beautiful movie!

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Butterfly is a low quality film, the script and acting are quite poor, but it is 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, Keach's character pleads guilty of incest and commits to going to prison for 10 years when he isn't even her father, to free her of any punishment and to continue to be something. She then says she wasn't forced, which in turn causes Jess to say that Katy isn't his daughter. So he is willing to do 10 years for nothing and she was willing to receive the punishment for her actions to defend him, but not interested in staying with him. Absurd! and all still very wrong. Orson Welles was amusing as the judge.

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?

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.

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.