Instant Favorite.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

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

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The Blue Butterfly is 'inspired by a true story.' The true story involves a young boy apparently ill with terminal cancer, who goes to the South American jungle with a renowned entomologist in search of a blue butterfly. When they return, the boy's cancer has disappeared.The facts of the true story are dramatic and emotional moving. There is no need to embroider them. But that is just what the filmmakers do.I'm guessing, but my feeling is that what we see in the movie that is not in the original story is: (1) The scientist did not have a long-lost daughter (2) There was no romantic connection between the boy's Mum and the scientist (2) No little villager girl actually connected with the boy, or caught the blue butterfly (4) The scientist did not fall down a hole, forcing the boy to make his own way through the jungle.A boy goes to the jungle and comes back cured of cancer - but the story is deemed not 'dramatic' enough by the idiots who pose as story experts in Hollywood. This film is a schmaltzy, overblown insult to the intelligence. Great stories are not about ticking off the boxes in some script reader's manual. There is a genuine, uplifting tale buried in this film, that somehow got lost as each executive decided to burp out a script note after lunch. The end result is an unedifying, distasteful meringue of a film. I was insulted.

It was terribly boring. The soundtrack was woeful - some shots would have come to life much better with dramatic and more moving scores.The dialogue was predictable.Were they targeting an adult audience or kids? I was lost. It was not entertaining.The only reason I kept watching was that I ate dinner late and I needed to let it digest before going to bed. Otherwise I would have been in bed 60 minutes ago.They must have had a shock after the edit. "Gawd, how are we going to sell this?"

its pretty good but then it has a few flaws, mainly acting, but still good........the photography was amazing and very very well done, the acting was kinda cheap, it was like the acting in most of these family films i guess, William Hurt was great too, but the little kid really annoyed me because he sucks at acting, and it also has a good story, and a good meaning among a few other flaws and some other things that are good about it.....so if you want to see a pretty good family film, you should check this one out

I thought the film even with the dramatization was compelling, but unfortunately the scriptor and director forgot or ignored the end of the film by simply ending the story with a cute Voice Over, and tracking shot of the young boy running into the fade out. There were basic errors in story telling, and some times you have to give the audience what they want or perceive to want. example: It would have been good to see the doctor meet up with his daughter. It would have been good to see or read a bio of the young boy's life in 2004 as the story was written about his life in 1987. The audience is always right. . .hence the film's pitiful 1.7mill box office.