A short time ago, a film lover named Chris Garcia reached out to me, introducing himself. He inquired about receiving a screener of ‘Butterfly Dust’ so that he may write a review of the film for his online film journal called Klaus At Gunpoint. Receiving a review can be pretty fantastic, so we happily sent along a link. The following is the review that appeared on their site:
—–
A Short Film Review by Christopher J. Garcia
Zombie movies are played, right? We’ve had a decade of the Undead rising up in the cinema, and we’ve seen every situation, right? Right?
Maybe not.
Butterfly Dust is one of the most original films I’ve ever seen as it takes a concept that has been done to death, that of the scientist who has decided to try her serum on herself. She traps herself in with her colleagues as the rest of those she experimented on turn into killing machines. The scientists are torn about what to do with their friend who is turning into one of those killing machines. The description of “Twelve Angry Men meets 28 Days Later” is apt, but it’s much more. It’s a character study, at times, that considers the different ways in which rational people may consider the threats to themselves and their friends. At other times, it’s an action thriller. Did it remind me of World War Z (The movie, not the book)? Yes, a bit, but it went beyond that level by working with its material so wisely. It didn’t rely on complex cinematography (though it’s far better than competent) or dazzling effects (though there’s some nice make-up work!) but the script takes centre stage in this fine short.
There are a couple of small issues, as there are in any film. The entire production might take a little too long to set up, leaving the audience waiting for the action to start. The first two minutes gives off an impression of solo Jekyl and Hyde, only to swing around and become an ensemble piece about the choices we’re faced with in disasters. That doesn’t lessen the impact we get from the actual meat of the story, or the ending.
And that’s where I’m betting others will have problems.
You see, it’s not a traditional ending, but in a way, it is. It’s a John Sayles ending in the way that it is ballsy and not at all spoon-feeding an audience. There is an outcome, we know that, but what is that outcome? That isn’t given to us, and in my eyes, it makes for a better film.
—–
Needless to say, I’m speechless!