I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

A different way of telling a story

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Fetching Cody is a movie about addictions in Vancouver. The act and the development of addictions is very subtle in this movie. There are no scenes of needles being shot into veins, no vomiting nor convulsions. Instead it is a love story of two individuals who live in downtown Vancouver and whom seem to gradually become addicted to illegal substances.A situation starts to occur, which instigates Art to want to change things in order to better the life of his girlfriend, Cody. This leads to an unconventional journey into the past.The lead character, Art is a very young man, whom camouflages his addictions well. He seems like a very likable individual. There does not seem to be many problems that arise in the lives of Art and Cody - however Art discovers that a lot of Cody's problems resided in her unique past. Uncovering one problem seems to have led to the uncovering of another problem, and this seems to ripple backwards into her childhood - revealing all kinds of reasons why Cody would resort to addictions, in order to numb her own personal pain.Fetching Cody is a pretty good movie, because it does not throw the viewer into a no-mans-land of disgust and repulsion. However, the addictions that both Art and Cody have seem to resemble, personal sadness and personal alienation.I believe that if both Cody and Art were versed in understanding mental health and addictions versus inarticulate in these matters - that they both would have been able to have solved and dissolved personal pain in a much more effective and cathartic way. Since the viewer only has the background of Cody, I would say that, when she met Art she was already a trauma victim floating above her own pain - never talking about it, but act it out by prostitution and street substance use.

This movie reminds me of a mentally retarded athlete trying to compete with the "real" athletes on the Olympics (not the Paralympics, though! The real ones) in 1500-metre-run: while everyone his job, he is running in circles, but at least 50 times or so, and everyone is "proud" of him, that he at least did not fall.I don't really want to vote for it, because it is clear that the producers had no money, but I also suspect, that who ever wrote the script, must have been as high as the protagonist: totally dumb protagonist(s), over-simplified motives (like anyone would kill him-self for getting a boner in school) and a total lack of logic; you name it, the movie has it. The part with the tampons is something that speaks for itself (and that is imbecility). But I will vote it, since I don't understand how the majority could give this "special" movie such an extraordinary good rating.I really don't feel like it, but I guess I have to go into the time-travel part of this. First of all: I am not quite sure if there was any "actuall" time travel "really" happening in this movie. It all could have been a bad trip (since the protagonist often affirms to be high, when asked about it, which would at least explain, his narrow-mindedness). He even is telling the homeless guy (which really is the best "thing"/actor in the movie; I gotta admit that with some other reviewers, that mentioned it. He seems like an inscrutable, crazy-genius professor from the future.) that the chair is not an actual time-machine after and even just before traveling through time again. Seriously: WTF? Is he really just that high that he doesn't know anymore what's real or not? Now to the part with time-travel logic: jeez, that one really is landmark, when it comes to lack of logic for time-travel stuff. First of all: how come that he is opening the window for his past-self (therefore interacting with his self past) but is never seeing his time-traveling self when he travels back just minutes to undo the mistakes he made (which is, by the way impossible, for nearly all time-travel theories, except the spread-sheet one, but we don't talk about that one since it is used for mainstream-flicks mostly: yes I am looking at you, Back to the future...) And why doesn't any action he made in the past has any consequences at all in the present? And why is the homeless guy telling Art one time, that changing stuff in the past is harder than changing them in them in the present, but some time later he tells him, that is he changes minor things, the outcome could be unpredictable (the so called butterfly effect)? And why is the homeless guy remembering Cody but not Art; or is he just pretending? And was that Gothic-girl on the bus, supposed to be Jody? Questions upon questions, which will not be answered, I guess, because I actually believe that the director did not ask them for himself (or was not capable of doing so...)So why 2 Stars than, you ask? I do appreciate cinematography (that was the only thing that did not look completely cheap), as well as the basic statement, that you gotta let your loved ones go, in case you are really loving them (should this be the message, the director wanted us to know, which I am not quite convinced, he was).

I'm giving this one notch short of a 10, simply so I can protest that the film wasn't another 30 minutes longer, I didn't want it to end. Jay Baruchel, As Art really makes impossible scene after impossible scene believable. You get to care as much as he does as the film goes on, about Cody. At lunch I explained it to a friend today who said it "sounds like The Time Traveler's Wife".While there are certain premise similarities, Time Traveler, is like-for your grandmother, Cody is for the rest of us. An all too real world, mixed with a surreal trip (through time?). Watch the film and find out, it's definitely worth it.

This movie was not even one of the sequels to Butterfly Effect. It was the same movie. Protagonist lived but may have well died because his love was gone. Then again, what you do not know does not hurt you. I thought that the lead actor Jay Baruchel overacted . Sarah Lind was fine in her role as Cody. Art ,our protagonist was not a likable guy at all. I did not see it in his personality that he would be unselfish, especially the way he changed the Christmas Party and hurt Helmet the way he did. That was just downright mean. The film was uneven. I mean finding a recliner that was a time machine. I thought that was just silly. I also did not understand how the hospital could not find Codys last name when she was paying rent and utilities in an apartment. Loose ends like that got to me. I did not like Art , he came across as just very belligerent . Maybe if his childhood was explored a bit, I would understand somewhat of why he turned out to be a druggie. The movie was entertaining but really for not the right reasons. It was silly. Watch it but do not pay for this. If I paid to see this my rating might be a pt or 2 lower.