1141-1145

Chapter 1141: Such an Approach

It was Anson—indeed, it was Anson. In his debut as a producer, he chose such a unique project, showcasing a distinct cinematic taste.

Furthermore, he broke the mold, straying from the conventional path and maintaining this throughout, transforming the entire premiere into something refreshing, unlike typical Hollywood norms.

Everything felt just right.

Nicholas couldn't contain his excitement and elation, even surprising himself. After years of navigating Hollywood, he still managed to keep a sense of novelty and curiosity alive.

How many more surprises did Anson have in store?

With these thoughts swirling, Nicholas stood up, weaving through the crowd and approaching Anson amid the lively chatter.

Clearly, Anson was the absolute center of attention, surrounded by a buzzing crowd, yet he navigated the situation with ease, chatting and laughing with everyone around him—

This wasn't an interview or a networking event, but simply friends talking.

Reporters, audience members, actors, even staff from the premiere—everyone stood together, chatting naturally. Although conversations often gravitated back toward Anson, the warm, communal atmosphere was unlike any premiere Nicholas had experienced.

Nicholas liked this vibe, even more than film festivals. It felt more relaxed, just a group of friends gathering on a weekday night to watch a movie and chat afterward, shaking off the day’s fatigue and stress, enjoying a pleasant evening.

Nicholas stood quietly at the side, waiting patiently until his moment came. He seized the opportunity and casually posed a question.

“Anson, aren’t you worried that this kind of ending won’t meet market expectations?”

Not just Anson, but the eyes of those around them also turned his way.

A smile flickered in Anson’s eyes. “Nick, you’re in full journalist mode.”

The light jab made Nicholas laugh. “Sorry, old habits die hard. So, what do you think?”

Nicholas knew Anson’s skill; if he wasn’t careful, the question could slip away unanswered. He kept his focus, smoothly guiding the conversation back on track.

This time, Anson didn’t dodge. “Worried? Of course, I’m worried.”

Laughter erupted around them.

Clearly, no one believed him.

“I’m serious,” Anson added. “I know audiences don’t like seeing tragedies in theaters. If they wanted tragedy, real life has plenty of it—why come to the movies?”

“Especially now, during the Thanksgiving holidays. Just because I enjoy watching family feuds doesn’t mean I’d want to see a full-blown tragedy in a movie theater.”

“That would definitely impact ticket sales.”

The crowd burst into laughter again.

Nicholas joined in, then followed up, “So why did you go with this ending? I thought—”

Anson turned to Nicholas. “You thought that as a first-time producer, I’d want to make a statement, showcase my unique tastes, and believe that only a tragic ending could elevate it beyond commercial fare?”

Nicholas spread his hands. “You said it all.”

Anson chuckled too. “No, I know that being a first-time producer, the bottom line is to make money. Otherwise, there’s no next time.”

Then why?

Anson answered before anyone could ask.

“This is the director’s cut, exclusive for the premiere. The actual theatrical release won’t be the same.”

Nicholas: ...

Everyone: ...

Stunned silence.

Such an approach was unheard of.

Nicholas stammered, “Isn’t the director’s cut usually released after the movie’s initial run?”

Anson’s smile deepened. “Or when the DVD releases, to make a bit more.”

“No, we’re not doing that. We’re trying something different, paired with the movie’s theme.”

“The movie is called ‘The Butterfly Effect,’ meaning every action can lead to a vastly different outcome. Every ending we face is the result of accumulated choices.”

“The movie is the same.”

“In fact, we edited five different endings. These versions—including today’s premiere director’s cut—will be randomly distributed to different theaters.”

“In other words, the version you see depends on fate.”

A hum swept through the room. The atmosphere thickened with shock and awe.

In its previous life, “The Butterfly Effect” performed decently at the box office, making $57 million in North America and $96 million globally, a solid return on its $13 million budget. This success led New Line Cinema to produce sequels—not just a second film, but a third one as well.

However, strictly speaking, after accounting for distribution fees and marketing costs, “The Butterfly Effect” only made around $10 million in pure profit. What truly delighted New Line was the later sales and rentals of the DVD—that was the main moneymaker.

In other words, the movie’s impact during its theatrical run was limited. It gained traction and achieved classic status through word-of-mouth and post-release acclaim in the home video market.

This time, Anson was pondering how to make an exceptional film stand out right from its promotional stage.

Of course, he knew his idea was bold, risky even—

99.99% of films have only one ending when released. Director’s cuts and alternative versions come later because distributors don’t want audiences confused by multiple versions during a theatrical run, potentially sparking controversy.

Subsequent releases cater to dedicated fans.

Directors like Zack Snyder often release director’s cuts to defend or reinterpret their theatrical versions.

Consistency, standardization, and unity are crucial during a film’s initial release.

But Anson felt that “The Butterfly Effect,” with its inherent nature, warranted this kind of risk, breaking the fourth wall and bringing its concept into real life—

Each person could see a different ending.

This was a hook that could draw true enthusiasts in droves.

It came with high risks, which Anson accepted. He believed that, based on its original trajectory, “The Butterfly Effect” was always a niche sci-fi film for enthusiasts who loved analyzing its theories and narrative structure.

So why not abandon the idea of appealing to a broad, all-ages audience and instead take a gamble targeting that specific group?

If it failed, Anson would accept it. But what if it succeeded?

And so, this moment unfolded.

Seeing the shocked faces around him, Anson knew he had already succeeded in creating buzz.

Nicholas gaped at Anson. “Are you saying even the theaters won’t know?”

Anson shrugged lightly. “At least during the first round of showings. In the second round, they’ll know the contents of each copy and can choose accordingly. But for the first round, it’s entirely secret, random distribution. Even we won’t know which copy goes where.”

(End of Chapter)

Chapter 1142: Two Worlds  

“Master and Commander,” “Master and Commander”… The Los Angeles Times entertainment section’s headline was no different: “Master and Commander.” Every major outlet had the same headline: Master and Commander.  

Carl Rivette, a film blogger, wasn’t based in New York or Los Angeles. He lived in Paris, which was his true home.  

The last time he attended the Cannes Film Festival or traveled to North America, it was due to invitations. Otherwise, his budget didn’t allow for globetrotting to attend premieres. However, in France, he was gradually building a stable readership.  

Since his close encounter with Anson at Cannes, Carl had started seeing Anson in a new light. Almost unconsciously, he found himself looking for news about him.  

For instance—  

The Butterfly Effect was released.  

Carl was curious about Anson’s aesthetic choices as a first-time producer. Unfortunately, the movie faced Master and Commander, a heavyweight competitor. The outcome was predictable: a complete disaster.  

Media coverage overwhelmingly focused on Master and Commander.  

Even the Los Angeles Times didn’t break form.  

The reason was simple: 20th Century Fox’s publicity department executed an exceptional campaign, ensuring every major media outlet spotlighted Master and Commander. New Line Cinema had no chance—  

Their budget was insufficient.  

That’s the reality. The era where a “good wine needs no bush” is long gone. Now, whoever shouts the loudest grabs the most attention, and marketing’s importance has been magnified.  

Even someone like Anson couldn’t change that.  

In Hollywood, capital still reigns supreme.  

Clinging to a sliver of hope, Carl opened the New York Times website, hoping for something different in its entertainment section.  

However—  

Master and Commander.  

Carl was disappointed yet again. The final bastion of reputable media had fallen.  

Historically, the New York Times favored Anson, writing several feature stories over the years, offering unique insights into him. But in the face of 20th Century Fox’s publicity blitz, they weren’t exempt. Their entertainment section's headline went to Russell Crowe.  

“Wait, hold on.”  

Just as Carl was about to close the page—he had no interest in Master and Commander—a photo caught his eye. His finger hesitated mid-air.  

Anson.  

The photo stood out starkly, different from the typical premiere snapshots.  

Anson was surrounded by a bustling crowd, their faces glowing with bright, joyful smiles. It was clear they were enjoying a magical moment. Anson, encircled by the throng, seemed to hear someone calling him. He looked upward, directly at the camera.  

Click.  

The moment was captured for eternity.  

Amid the noise and commotion, Anson stood out effortlessly.  

That face seemed to slow time itself, drawing the viewer in.  

The caption read:  

“Anson Wood: A Night for Friends—  

The Butterfly Effect, a movie about life, yet so much more.”  

Carl glanced at the byline—Nicholas Flynn.  

But what truly intrigued him was this:  

While the headline undeniably belonged to Master and Commander, spanning the page horizontally with dense text, directly below it was a sprawling feature on The Butterfly Effect. The feature was three times larger, packed with detailed analysis and accompanied by vivid photos.  

“Haha!”  

Carl couldn’t help but laugh out loud. Even through the screen, he could sense the reporter’s rebellious spirit:  

“Fine, Master and Commander can have the headline, but I’ll steal its thunder with a comprehensive spotlight on The Butterfly Effect.”  

Of course, other media outlets also reported on The Butterfly Effect—it was Anson, after all. No one wanted to miss the story. But out of deference to Master and Commander, their coverage remained superficial.  

Yet even with brief mentions, one could sense the journalists' surprise and admiration. The premiere of The Butterfly Effect blazed a new trail, captivating audiences in unexpected ways.  

Finally, the New York Times offered a deep dive.  

The astonishment and praise were palpable, leaping off the page.  

Carl, both envious and curious, couldn’t imagine how the premiere unfolded based solely on written descriptions.  

Interactive events. Merchandise. Parties. Breaking boundaries to enjoy a night together.  

The entire concept was alluring, and the vibrant atmosphere seemed to leap off the page. Just reading about it, Carl couldn’t help but wonder about the merchandise—  

And to think Anson himself designed and created them!  

Unbelievable.  

If the movie premiered in Paris with the same merchandise, how amazing would that be?  

“... Multiple endings? Are they crazy?”  

“No, no, no, they’re not. That’s just Anson for you.”  

“But why? With so many endings, how do I know which one I’ll like?”  

“That’s the point of Anson. He wants us to think.”  

“Even for Anson, this feels too wild…”  

Nearby, a soft conversation caught Carl’s attention.  

He was in a cozy neighborhood café, not a large chain, but a local spot where residents of all ages gathered, even on weekdays.  

Turning his head, Carl saw two young women settling into a nearby table, excitedly discussing something. Their animated expressions revealed their mood.  

Without hesitation, Carl approached them.  

“Sorry to intrude, but I couldn’t help overhearing—are you talking about Anson?”  

“So, you’re discussing The Butterfly Effect? What’s this about multiple endings?”  

Eagerly, Carl turned his laptop toward the two women to prove his genuine curiosity.  

They leaned in to look, exchanged a knowing glance, and burst out laughing.  

Through their explanation, Carl learned that forums were buzzing with chatter, offering a completely different narrative from the media.  

Rumors from the Los Angeles premiere suggested that The Butterfly Effect featured multiple endings. The twist? These endings weren’t post-credits scenes but randomized across different screenings.  

The news sparked an uproar online.  

Protests and backlash erupted first—  

Fueled by outrage and mockery.  

Imagine a movie with five different endings. Would viewers have to watch it five times?  

And since the endings were randomized, unless someone had extraordinary luck, seeing all five endings was nearly impossible.  

What was this, blatant robbery?  

Though everyone understood studios wanted to make money, such an audacious cash grab was unprecedented.  

The backlash was swift and fierce, becoming the hot topic on forums and spreading like wildfire.  

(End of Chapter) 

*Chapter 1143: Going Viral in Black and Red*

Everything unfolded as expected—

A movie with a post-credit scene is a delightful surprise, adding extra joy.

But a movie with multiple endings? That’s just shocking and, for many, infuriating.

Imagine this: It’s Friday night, you sit down to watch a movie to relax after a tiring week, just looking for some light entertainment. Then someone tells you that the movie is over—but not really—because there are other endings, five in total!

Surprised? Shocked? Suddenly, your whole weekend feels ruined.

And if you thought that was bad enough, wait—there’s a twist.

The endings are randomized.

No one knows which theater is showing which ending. Suddenly, your entire weekend might be consumed by this puzzle, leaving you restless.

What the heck?!

Netizens are genuinely furious. Who’s the "genius" behind this self-indulgent, absurd marketing strategy? It feels like the audience is being treated like clowns.

At first, the internet erupted in anger, with people lashing out and venting their frustration.

Clearly, this was a bold experiment, a complete departure from traditional approaches—

And backlash was inevitable.

People tend to gravitate toward familiarity. Every time someone tries to break conventions, there’s always resistance, often fierce.

The team behind The Butterfly Effect had anticipated this response.

However, reality turned out to be slightly different.

Amid the chorus of complaints, applause and praise began to emerge.

Why? Because of the movie itself—

The Butterfly Effect. Every choice can lead to drastically different outcomes.

It became clear from Anson’s execution that this film wasn’t just popcorn entertainment. It was a deep dive into life’s uncertainties. The decision to release multiple endings, shown randomly, wasn’t just a gimmick. It was a way to break the fourth wall and bring the film into the real world—

Every viewer’s choice could shape their perception of the film, making the box office results equally unpredictable. Everything was a gamble.

For any other film, this might have been dismissed as a cheap trick to grab attention. But Anson wasn’t just looking for shock value.

Most importantly, early audiences from the premiere expressed unanimous awe at the ending they witnessed. They described being stunned, glued to their seats, and compelled to reflect on life. They were curious to see what other surprises the director had in store.

“If you don’t like it, watch it once and move on. The other endings won’t matter. It’s just a bad movie, right?

If you do like it, then you can choose whether to rewatch and explore the other endings.

More importantly, how you deal with the uncertainty of the multiple endings is, in itself, a choice. And from that moment, the butterfly effect has already begun.

Isn’t the unknown the most fascinating part?”

Fans singing the film’s praises argued that this was a premiere unlike any other.

From the interactive format to the event’s theme and the movie itself, the entire evening revolved around “connections between people.” Not just love, family, and friendship, but also fleeting encounters with strangers—brief meetings that could still change lives.

Without a doubt, this was the most innovative and immersive premiere they’d ever experienced. It wasn’t about cheap stunts or forced suspense. Everything tied back to the core of the movie.

This was genuine effort—a heartfelt approach that fully understood the essence of the film, ensuring every attendee could feel its charm firsthand.

Compared to the rigid and formulaic nature of other films, this was infinitely more exciting—

No shade on Master and Commander, of course.

The heated discussions grew, spreading like wildfire.

Supportive voices, dissenting voices.

Praise, criticism.

Admiration, disdain.

The clash of opinions ignited sparks that rapidly consumed the internet.

Initially, the innovative premiere for The Butterfly Effect generated small-scale buzz, creating chatter within niche circles. However, the conversation remained limited, unable to gain broader traction.

The premiere focused on shifting the spotlight away from the actors and onto the audience. The event was more like a carnival. But it lacked a standout gimmick or breakout moment to captivate the general public.

In other words, it was novel but nothing groundbreaking.

In fact, the stars were overshadowed, which didn’t align with market expectations.

But now, the combination of the movie’s randomized endings and the premiere’s unique format created an explosive reaction. Discussions snowballed, turning The Butterfly Effect into a hot topic online.

And then, a bizarre phenomenon emerged—

In the news, Master and Commander dominated headlines, leaving The Butterfly Effect struggling for visibility.

On internet forums, however, The Butterfly Effect was the center of attention, with all discussions revolving around it, leaving no room for Master and Commander.

Two narratives, two realities.

So, what’s the truth?

Both are real.

The difference lies in their promotional strategies:

Master and Commander followed a traditional route, methodically building its campaign. The Butterfly Effect took a bold, unconventional approach, venturing into uncharted territory.

In the end, who will prevail?

Especially with The Butterfly Effect’s audacious release of five alternate endings, is this brilliance or folly? How will it affect the market? No one knows. It’s a brand-new experiment.

The answer will come from the audience, who will cast their votes through ticket sales—

No tricks, no gimmicks, just that simple.

Even the media can’t hide their curiosity.

From an industry perspective, while Anson revolutionized the market last year with a surprise flash mob for Catch Me If You Can, this time his strategy for The Butterfly Effect feels dangerously risky—bordering on reckless.

Industry professionals remain skeptical.

Multiple endings randomly screened? It sounds doomed to fail.

Based on their expertise and experience, stunts like this usually backfire, sabotaging a film’s prospects.

Simply put, Anson has let success go to his head.

His meteoric rise seems to have made him lose touch with reality, like a hot air balloon drifting into the clouds.

And his competition isn’t minor. He’s up against Russell Crowe and Master and Commander. Just look at the success of Pirates of the Caribbean this summer—it’s clear that naval epics are making a comeback.

For now, the debates and discussions can continue. But the focus shifts to the quality of the films themselves. Regardless of public reactions, the critics’ reviews have already dropped hot off the press!

(End of Chapter)

*Chapter 1144: Aiming for Victory*

"Time Magazine" – 100/100!  

"The Wall Street Journal" – 100/100!  

"The Washington Post" – 100/100!  

"Vanity Fair" – 100/100!  

"Chicago Tribune" – 100/100!  

Perfect scores! The screen is filled with nothing but glowing reviews as the market erupts with enthusiasm.

"Chicago Sun-Times" critic Roger Ebert joined the praise, too:

"Like David Lean, the film achieves the grandeur of an epic while retaining its human touch. It reminds us, in a masterful way, that a great action movie isn't just about destroying buildings with explosions but orchestrating breathtaking visuals and soundscapes to evoke deep, soul-shaking resonance."  

*100/100!*

Unanimous acclaim and an avalanche of praise—an absolutely spectacular reception.

Could it be…

Another victory for Anson?

No, this time, it's Russell Crowe.

All this fervent praise is for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which has arrived to a rousing ovation.

Following A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator, Russell Crowe has scored a hat-trick of critical successes. The excitement surrounding this release rivals the fanfare of Gladiator, marking the pinnacle of Crowe's career.

No wonder!

No wonder 20th Century Fox exuded such confidence. Their overwhelmingly positive internal screenings solidified their belief in the film's potential.

They’re eyeing box office domination.

They’re aiming for Oscar glory.

And they’re planning to conquer the holiday season with both.

Let’s not forget that epic films like The Lord of the Rings and Gladiator have been among the most celebrated and commercially successful works in recent years. Master and Commander isn’t competing with Pirates of the Caribbean; its sights are set on the box-office-smashing, Oscar-winning champions.

And sure enough—

Upon release, Master and Commander swept the reviews.

20th Century Fox: “Even if the ‘Butterfly Effect’ premiere had a novel gimmick, so what? In the end, it all comes down to strength.”  

And strength they have. Roger Ebert went so far as to compare Peter Weir and Russell Crowe’s collaboration to the legendary David Lean—

David Lean, the British director behind classics like The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, and Brief Encounter. With two Oscars for Best Director, a Palme d’Or, and a Golden Bear to his name, he’s considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

Ebert’s unreserved admiration for Master and Commander speaks volumes, with his 100/100 score still feeling insufficient to convey his enthusiasm.

And yet, that’s not all.

Among 42 major outlets, the film received 34 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and just 1 negative, resulting in a stellar aggregate score of *81/100*.

So, how does "81" stack up?

Looking at Russell Crowe's own filmography:

- Gladiator: *67*

- A Beautiful Mind: *72*

The difference is clear!

Crowe has carved out his place in Hollywood, achieving both box-office and critical acclaim, with Master and Commander serving as a springboard for even greater heights.

Boom. Boom. Boom.

The impact is thunderous.

Before its release, Master and Commander had already stirred excitement within 20th Century Fox and among industry insiders, who anticipated a strong showing. But few predicted such a meteoric debut, instantly positioning it as the frontrunner of the awards season.

Meanwhile, The Butterfly Effect? Trouble looms.

From the moment the release schedules were announced, industry experts expressed concern over New Line Cinema’s decision to pit The Butterfly Effect directly against Master and Commander. It seemed like a risky gamble.

Although The Butterfly Effect managed to make some noise on its opening day thanks to Anson’s innovative promotional tactics—pulling hundreds of reporters away from the Master and Commander premiere—the wave of attention lasted less than 12 hours.

As the entertainment headlines filled with coverage of Master and Commander’s glowing reviews, the storm shifted.

Russell Crowe is, indeed, aiming for victory.

And The Butterfly Effect?

Even the media began to worry. A glance at its aggregated reviews painted a grim picture—

*Not good.*

Review aggregation often varies in timing depending on when critics can view and critique a film. For instance, Roger Ebert attended Master and Commander’s premiere but planned to catch The Butterfly Effect after its public release. As such, his review of the latter wouldn’t influence its initial score.

This nuance becomes significant when examining the first wave of reviews for The Butterfly Effect, which included only 23 critics—a stark contrast to Master and Commander’s robust 42.

This disparity underscores the difference in media interest and perceived importance between the two films.

A rocky start.

For a rising star like Anson, such an outcome is rare. But Russell Crowe’s formidable presence and 20th Century Fox’s aggressive marketing were enough to suppress Anson’s momentum.

Some in the media remarked: “Anson’s box office pull has always been a topic of debate. This time, it seems he’s still a bit unsteady on his feet.”  

Worse still, out of those 23 reviews, The Butterfly Effect received *10 negative scores*.

Ten!

The sheer number of negative reviews paints a concerning picture, even without comparing it to Master and Commander.

For example:

- The Wall Street Journal: *10/100*

"A dismal life and a dismal film."  

- Vanity Fair: *20/100*

"Like opening a surprise Valentine’s Day box of chocolates only to find grass-flavored ones. Yuck."  

- Los Angeles Times: *20/100*

"An immature exploration of chaos theory. Every plot twist feels juvenile, obvious, and riddled with logical holes."  

Oh, no!

Chapter 1145: Reaping What You Sow

Setting aside Master and Commander for the moment, the anticipation surrounding The Butterfly Effect has always been present, fueled by a mix of curiosity, provocation, scrutiny, and nitpicking as it awaited release.

As Anson’s first film as a producer, and following his transformative attempts in The Elephant and Walk the Line, every aspect reflects his determination to shed his image as just a "pretty face." Yet, the general public—controlled by prejudice and bias—has refused to remove their tinted glasses to offer an objective assessment. The spotlight on The Butterfly Effect has only grown fiercer.

This could be a good thing if the film proves solid in quality—or a bad thing, as it appears now.

*Rolling Stone*, 25/100:

"Not even Anson Wood’s good looks can save such an utterly boring film. Buddy, what happened to your memories? Lose your diary and suddenly you lose all your other memories too? Is your entire life just a fragmented mess?"

*The New York Post*, 25/100:

"Plot? Looks. Characters? Looks. Acting? Looks. Twists, story, reflection? All looks. If it’s just about looks, then sure, it’s got everything. Ha."

A flood of negative reviews crashes in.

The long-dreaded outcome has come true, predictably—

When pretty faces attempt to break free of their typecasting and broaden their range, it often results in disaster. They have everything and yet nothing, and not even their looks can save a work destined for failure.

Hollywood has seen this story countless times.

Brooke Shields, Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, Jessica Alba, Megan Fox, Zac Efron—the list goes on and on.

And now, Anson Wood joins their ranks.

Critics don’t care how successful Catch Me If You Can or Spider-Man were. If they don’t like something, they’ll criticize it ruthlessly.

Let’s not forget that even though The Elephant won the Palme d’Or, its media reception was still mixed and far from universally praised.

Now, with The Butterfly Effect falling short of expectations, negative reviews are sweeping in like a tidal wave.

These aren’t random, obscure outlets but reputable, high-profile media. And they’re not mild critiques—they’re scathing feedback in the form of tens and twenties.

It’s severe. Very severe.

Out of the first 23 media reviews, nearly half were outright negative. Compared to Master and Commander, it’s not even in the same league.

The atmosphere is grim.

Many outlets are questioning Anson’s judgment in selecting scripts.

Before the release of The Butterfly Effect, the media praised Anson as having a golden touch, saying all his projects were hits and lauded his keen eye.

Now, they’re flipping their stance, saying Anson still has a lot to learn:

In the past, Anson didn’t have a say in project selection; the roles were chosen by the production teams. Therefore, the success of those works can’t be attributed to him.

The Butterfly Effect is Anson’s first outing as a producer and his first true test of his judgment. The results suggest he still has a long way to go.

But that’s the harsh, cold reality of the industry: when you succeed, everything you do is right; when you fail, everything is wrong.

Praise or criticism—it’s all just smoke.

The situation is dire but not entirely hopeless.

Out of those 23 reviews, there were still four mixed and nine positive ones.

*Village Voice*, 65/100:

"The film’s understanding of the butterfly effect is too shallow, overly literal, and overly dramatic. It’s perfect for those audiences who scream 'masterpiece' every time they see a plot twist, a way to pass an afternoon with a bucket of popcorn.

But in this otherwise dumb film, the one bright spot is Anson.

He uses his personal charm to hold the audience’s attention and keep the film from completely losing its way. Shockingly, he delivers convincing performances in key scenes, lending the story some credibility.

Too bad it’s not enough to sustain me until I reach my fridge at home."

The mention of the "fridge" refers to the Fridge Test: if a movie holds your attention long enough that you don’t notice its flaws until you’re home grabbing something from the fridge, then it’s considered a success as a genre film.

*Los Angeles Weekly*, 65/100:

"It’s hard to believe this script took two writers seven years to develop. Clearly, these guys are just fraternity kids lacking life experience, with their heads full of self-indulgent ideas like 'a man saving his lover can save the world.' They didn’t even bother researching the butterfly effect properly.

What’s harder to believe is that the performances turned out to be the film’s biggest strength.

Anson Wood, Rachel McAdams, and Heath Ledger deliver impressive chemistry. From their expressions to body language to their grasp of their roles, they manage to carve out emotional depth from a shallow and immature script, delivering convincing performances.

I don’t like it. But I don’t hate it either.

Maybe I’ll remember it because of Anson Wood."

Surprisingly, major outlets like Los Angeles Weekly and Village Voice reached a rare consensus with similar scores and feedback.

The other mixed reviews followed a similar pattern.

Critics agreed that the film’s plot was too straightforward, offering only a surface-level exploration of the butterfly effect. This left the movie stuck in a cycle of plot twists without deeper intellectual engagement.

However, the actors’ performances and personal charisma salvaged the film.

At the very least, it’s still worth a watch.

This is why these reviews landed in the "mixed" category—flawed but with redeeming qualities. The scores hover near the passing mark.

Now, things are getting interesting—

Whether in negative or mixed reviews, the focus remains squarely on Anson.

It’s clear that his reputation as a "pretty face" is a double-edged sword. It draws attention to the film but also overshadows everything else, making its success or failure revolve almost entirely around him.

In a way, when directors Mackie and Eric cast Anson, this was their intent. And now, they’ve gotten what they wanted.

Yet, the directors are shaken.

Their once-proud script has been torn apart by critics. If not for Anson salvaging some dignity, the flood of negative reviews could have been even worse.

They had believed Anson was hitching a ride on their coattails, confident that their "perfect" script needed no outside input and dreaming that critics and audiences would bow to its brilliance. But the tables turned—it’s they who are riding on Anson’s coattails, relying on him to save them from total disaster.

Mackie and Eric… are struggling to keep it together.

Even so, they take a deep breath and cling to their last hope—

What about the positive reviews?

After all, out of the first batch of media reviews, aren’t there still nine favorable ones?

(End of Chapter)