User reviews

I've been searching for this film for a while. Having seen Videodrome, The Fly and Naked Lunch, I knew that Cronenberg was capable of making compelling, disturbing, horrific pieces which resonated in a dark, menacing way; staying with you via their visceral imagery and twisted ambiance. Having seen Dead Ringers, Spider and A Dangerous Method, I knew that Cronenberg also had another side to his work. A more restrained, mature, refined yet no less affecting style which, at its best, achieved a great level of tension without the visceral gore of his aforementioned works.

What I hadn't seen was M Butterfly. The almost unmentioned work which takes Cronenberg's more mature approach to filmmaking and fulfils his promise by giving him a jewel in what is an extremely impressive crown. I greatly enjoyed the movies I mentioned in the previous paragraph but even the best ones I felt were lacking something for me to be able to say they were a masterpiece. Perhaps they felt a little convoluted, gratuitously gory, or perhaps at times distant and even lifeless in some of his later works. But M Butterfly is none of these things; well some may say its plot is convoluted but, strangely enough, it's heavily based on a true story, or rather it's based on a novel which is based on a true story.

What M Butterfly has, which many of Cronenberg's other films lack, to varying degrees, is relatability and empathy. Pure, unadulterated empathy. It presents its characters not as good or bad; it's not interested in judging or condemning; it is a film which desires to take you deep into the world of an enchanted and tortured man: Rene Gallimard. It wishes to show you his most intimate passions and desires, his triumph, his awakening, his desperation and his suffering. It wishes to explore his self- realisation, his moments of greatest happiness and it wishes to show us his ultimate tragedy.

This is a film which echoes with symbolism. Its structure is tight, its performances, by the two leads, are heartbreakingly sublime. It is influenced by opera, by Hitchcockian psychological, twisted romance, think Vertigo. Its story opens and unfolds like a delicate rose which eventually must wilt and die. This is poetry, this is humanism. This is the most accomplished and meaningful work I've seen in a long time.

If you are even slightly tempted to investigate this then know that, despite its lack of recognition and a number of poor reviews, this film had the power to tantalise and haunt, in equal measure, at least one audience member. I was taken on a journey which I intimately understood only too profoundly. Perhaps it will mean something significant to you too.

The shock and awe of his particular brand of horror might be what put Cronenberg on the map, but the qualities of any great director can't be boxed in by genre. This is decidedly the case with Cronenberg.

This seemingly straight forward spy drama, is the perfect framework for the Cronenbergian exploration of omnisexuality and man's ability to evolve beyond convention and conviction, into something uniquely other and uniquely beautiful. It's the emotional equivalent to his body horror movies, and as such distinctly different but nonetheless familiar.

Having seen all but his latest movie, I find it safe to say that David Cronenberg is the most fascinating and continually surprising director I have ever encountered. I simply love that crazy old guy.

Jeremy Irons plays the lead role as French diplomat, Phillipe Bouriscot, who falls in love with an absolutely seductive Chinese woman opera singer (John Lone). As Irons pursues the diva he's attracted to, she toys with his foreign ignorance of the cultural differences between their Western & Eastern societies.

In a sense, she keeps the diplomat at a distance for 18 years while their affair continues by becoming his teacher of cultural difference. The romantic & erotic chemistry between the diplomat & opera singer is a very famous true story written by David Henry Hwang--"Madame Butterfly." There have been numerous stage & screen renditions of the story.

I like this (1994) version best because David Cronenberg is undoubtedly the finest director to deal with the most important topic in the story: gender bending. "M. Butterfly" is the Canadian Cronenberg's first Hollywood funded debut. The surprise plot of the sorted true love story is one of espionage. An adults only film, it is one of intrigue, sizzling romance, twists & turns, deception & betrayal.

While not one of my favourite directors perhaps, David Cronenberg is to me one of the most interesting and unique directors. His filmography is not a consistent one (very few directors did or do), but more often than not his films are very well made, his films are full of good or more performances, he deals with difficult and daring themes and deals with them in a way that unsettles and stirs emotion. His films are more than full on horror.

'M Butterfly', based on a true story and a successful play, is generally considered one of his lesser films. Can sort of understand why and can understand some of the criticisms directed against it. The play is much more challenging and unsettles more (like with Gallimard's obsession and mental instability) and the film is in comparison on the conservative side and almost like it was being careful not to offend, and some can say that compared to Cronenberg's other work that it appears to be somewhat tame and could have done with more edge. Yet there is also a lot to recommend about 'M Butterfly', although the themes could have gone into much more depth thematically it's not really atypical Cronenberg. The themes are typically thought-provoking and the subject, far more disturbing than anything full on horror, is a difficult and brave one. It is nowhere near one of Cronenberg's best (put it somewhere around lower middle myself, but for me it is better than its very lukewarm reputation and the good things are many.

For starters it looks great. The scenery and locations are enough to take the breath away and both complemented and enhanced by the splendid cinematography, shot by somebody who is in as much love with the locations as anybody who's been there. The night scenes had an eeriness that contrasted nicely without jarring. Wonder if there is anybody else who loved the opening credits, another fine example once again of opening titles that are designed both beautifully and cleverly matched ideally by the music. Speaking of the music, Cronenberg regular Howard Shore is on hand and he doesn't disappoint, it's another one of his haunting and going for the emotional core rather than doing anything obvious scores and that is more than fine by me. The healthy doses of Puccini's 'Madama Butterfly' (anybody who has not seen the full opera, do as it is an absolute treat but bring tissues) embedded will delight fellow opera fans, full of beauty and emotion. Just to say that the story here has no connection to that opera.

Cronenberg does direct precisely and carefully, perhaps too careful in places, as well as with a suitably sympathetic edge. The script does provoke thought and is well-meaning and sincere, even if too literal. Despite what was said in the second paragraph and the story execution is far from perfect, 'M Butterfly' did move me and make me feel uncomfortable which were clearly its aims and achieved. The central relationship is sensitively portrayed and the complete anti-thesis of distant, and the cultural differences aspects could have offended but the film handles them tactfully enough. There is intrigue too with everything to do with Gallimard's job, not presented in a convoluted way at all. Despite having problems with the latter stages, the prison van scene and especially Gallimard's final monologue for me were actually very powerful, did cry during the latter and Jeremy Irons performed it very movingly.

Any issues had with 'M Butterfly' do not lie with the performances. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful lead in a role he's perfect for, it's not as good as his magnificent career-best performance in the infinitely superior 'Dead Ringers' (one of Cronenberg's best) but it is a very sincere performance with the right amount of understatement and edge. He has believable chemistry with John Lone, who does give a deeply felt portrayal despite never ever being believable as a woman, one of the film's criticisms and anybody not familiar with the true story or play will straight away find it obvious, which does spoil the major story point that should be a shock. Ian Richardson is suitably sly and authoritative, the supporting cast are all competent without being completely remarkable in roles that are fairly small but Richardson does stand out memorably.

On the other hand, 'M Butterfly' has to me quite a number of faults. As said, it could have done much more with its themes, and not been too careful to offend which would have made the film feel less conservative. Have no problem with deliberate pacing, some of my favourites have it and for a reason, did think that 'M Butterfly' did have too many dead spots and did feel draggy and uneventful at times in some of the middle act especially. The script can tend to be too literal but it's in the latter parts where the film is most problematic.

This is where story elements (especially the pregnancy subplot) are too abruptly introduced, not explored enough and done away with too soon. Shifts felt rushed and sudden in an almost out of nowhere way, one doesn't even notice the time jump. Following the big revelation, which sadly is not a surprise for anybody, the storytelling got ridiculous, with it taking so long to get to the truth when really there would have been cause for suspicion quite early on, and made Gallimard look like a total fool.

In conclusion, an uneven film, that is neither among Cronenberg's best or worst, but better than its reputation thanks to many impressive elements and far from a failure. Interesting but could and should have worked better than it turned out. 6/10

Jeremy Irons and John Lone (who plays the character, Song Liling) should both have gotten academy awards for their performance in this incredibly enigmatic and captivating scorcher of a movie. This is a completely new twist on on the classic opera and may even be more of a believable story because it is so creatively wicked. It has a sexual tension that holds throughout the whole movie and is entirely played out in the mind and sensuously mesmerizing at the same time.

It's an emotionally tortuous journey that Jeremy Irons makes in the name of love (?), and more likely addicted passion. John Lone's performance is exceptional as one who is just as driven and hooked psychologically in his own way as what it is in him that drives him to fulfill Jeremy's ecstasy and descent into irretrievable madness.

Definitely one of the best movies ever! I hope this makes it to DVD sometime soon as it surely deserves to be seen again and again.

Or, conversely, love doesn't know the gender it loves.

Jeremy Irons and John Lone star in "M. Butterfly," based on the hit play by David Henry Hwang. In the mid-'60s, while the cultural revolution is going on in China, French Vice Consul Phillipe Bouriscot (Irons) falls in love with a singer, Song (John Lone), who performs with the Bejing opera. He believes Song to be a woman. And, like the story of "Madame Butterfly," there is love, there is betrayal, and there is humiliation.

As unbelievable as this story might be, it's based on a true one. The film doesn't go into how this fantasy was actually executed physically, but in point of fact, in real life, the character played by Irons believed he had gotten Song pregnant. Odd but true.

David Cronenberg does an excellent job with this dark, mysterious film, and the actors are terrific, each character hooked on this fantasy in his own way. The end of the film is haunting.

Well worth seeing.

M. BUTTERFLY continues to rank among the more important cinematic adaptations of a brilliant play - this one by the playwright David Henry Hwang. Having the pleasure to see two productions of the play - New York and Los Angeles - and viewing the film (1993) in the theater and on DVD brings an immense amount of satisfaction of just how fine this work is and continues to satisfy. The fact that David Henry Hwang wrote the screenplay suggests how true to the original the film is and how much of an impact it makes on the viewer

M. BUTTERFLY is based on a true story that stunned the world. During the Cultural Revolution in China in the mid-1960s, a French diplomat René Gallimard (a brilliant portrayal by Jeremy Irons) falls in love with a Chinese opera singer Song Liling (John Lone) - women were never allowed to sing in the Beijing Opera so the fact that Song is a man is credible. Song Liling touches him with a love as vivid, as seductive--and as elusive--as a butterfly. The love affair is so fragile and respectful that René does not suspect that Song is a man in disguise. René Is an important diplomat with the French Embassy, married to Jeanne (Barbara Sukowa), and is responsible for maintaining the high standards of diplomacy. Song Liling has been placed in the position of an undercover agent to gather secrets from the Embassy about the American plans in Vietnam. As René is promoted he demands to see his M. Butterfly without her clothes, an Song's only protection about her gender identity is to reveal that she is pregnant with René's child and must leave to be with her family until the child is born. As the Cultural Revolution heightens the French Embassy is to be diminished and it is discovered that René has been in a liaison with with a Chinese spy and is sent back to France to be imprisoned. When he is put on trial Song appears in Paris to be placed on the witness stand and since years have passed since their last meeting, Song attempts to offer herself once again to be René's Butterfly. Whether or not René's passion was a flight of fancy, it sparked the most vigorous emotions of his life. Only in real life could love become so unreal. And only in such a dramatic tour de force do we learn how a fantasy can become a man's mistress--as well as his jailer. In a desperately touching final scene we see the imprisoned René perform the final act from the opera that has accompanied this film - Puccini's MADAMA BUTTERFLY.

The story is at once compelling, explosive and slyly humorous, 'a work of unrivaled brilliance, illuminating the conflict between men and women, the differences between East and West, racial stereotypes--and the shadows we cast around our most cherished illusions.' The musical score by Howard Shore integrates arias and choruses from Puccini's opera with music from Chinese opera and his own sensuously beautiful original musical score. David Cronenberg directs with the tight amount of surreal disbelief the piece needs, but it is the brilliant acting of Jeremy Irons and John Lone that illuminate this film. It is a masterwork.

Grady Harp

Excellent cast and plot, although it is all too unreal and something similar to the great 'Last emperor'

In general, the movies of David Cronenberg haven't tended to appeal to me. M. Butterfly was better than some of his work I've come across but it still disappointed me. I will give credit though to Jeremy Irons, who put on a fabulous performance in the lead role of Rene Gallimard, a French diplomat in Beijing, China in the mid-1960's who becomes entranced by an "actress" named Song Liling, who he meets at the Beijing Opera. Song was also played quite brilliantly by John Lone (you have to watch the movie to understand that bit of casting) and the chemistry and sexual tension that Irons and Lone managed to create was excellent.

Having said that, the movie itself I did not find especially captivating. The first two-thirds of the movie or so are essentially a rather ho-hum quasi-espionage story, as Gallimard begins to reveal secrets about U.S. plans for Vietnam to Song, who in turn passes them on to the Chinese authorities. This led to what I thought was a pretty tame depiction of the Cultural Revolution. The last third of the movie then switches (rather abruptly, I thought) to France, where Gallimard is tried, and Song (now obviously a man) testifies at the trial. I was uncertain throughout what Song's real feelings for Gallimard were, although their encounter in the back of the prison vehicle seems to indicate that the feelings were sincere. It all led up to a very bizarre (appropriate for Cronenberg) ending, in which Gallimard performs the story for fellow prison inmates, dressed as a woman.

I found this a very difficult movie to rate, but a weak (in my opinion) story really drags a movie down, good performances notwithstanding. I'd say 4/10

In 1964, in Beijing, the French Ambassaty accountant René Gallimard (Jeremy Irons) goes to a social event without his wife Jeanne Gallimard (Barbara Sukowa) and meets the opera singer Song Liling (John Lone). René becomes attracted to Song and soon he meets her at the local opera house. He falls in love with her and Song becomes his mistress. Meanwhile Ambassador Toulon (Ian Richardson) promotes René to Vice- Consul and he becomes adviser for the French Intelligence. But Song has deep secrets that the naive René does not have any idea and believes is part of the Chinese culture.

"M Butterfly" is a strange and fascinating film inspired by true events that makes it believable. Directed by David Cronemberg, "M Butterfly" is probably one of his best films with an intriguing love story about clash of cultures, having China as background in a troubled revolutionary moment great acting and magnificent cinematography and set decoration. Even when watched more than once, "M Butterfly" is still an attractive gem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "M Butterfly"

In 1960s China, French diplomat Rene Gallimard (Jeremy Irons) falls in love with an opera singer, Song Liling (J. Lone) -- but Song is not at all who Gallimard thinks.

I liked when Song Liling said, "It's one of your favorite fantasies, isn't it? The submissive Oriental woman and the cruel white man." She put the story of Madame Butterfly in its place, and then in the much larger context of the Vietnam war that was about to erupt. I do not wish to make any political remarks, but this film was layered very well -- the Madam Butterfly aspect had at least three parallels.

Jeremy Irons is excellent, and it is nice to see him reuniting with Cronenberg. This does not have the "science" of Cronenberg, the "flesh" aspect, but as he says in a feature on the DVD, he leans towards odd communities as a filmmaker. And truly, there are some odd people here... is Song in love with Gallimard or just playing him? What is her secret? I loved the multiple twists and how smoothly they were revealed.

Roger Ebert sees the big twist as obvious from the start, but I think this might be because he cheated. I have to agree with him on this comment, though: "Irons bases his performance on the understanding that erotic impulses are always completely humorless to those who hold them, even though they might seem hilarious to the observer." That, and Irons naturally has a very humorless persona -- even when he jokes, he is all too serious.

I never saw the original play or read it, so I cannot make any educated comparisons to source material. But the film is great, and while not one of Cronenberg's better known films, still a must-see. Just so weird in a non-weird way.

Miscast, misguided screen-adaptation of the hit Broadway play about Caucasian French Intelligence Official in 1960s China who becomes obsessed with a mysterious Chinese opera singer. Jeremy Irons would seem to be a good choice for the lead, but his character is a moody, unconvincing jumble and Irons' performance turns into a series of faint little twitches. John Lone appears to be a most confident and intriguing screen actor, but he is not 'drag' material. A subplot about a pregnancy is confounding, making the Frenchman look like an immature dupe, and for what purpose? (that story thread is dropped almost as quickly as it is brought up). The movie is artificially handsome, with a pretty (if familiar) background score and overripe Chinese decor. If the intention was to create a deliberately artificial scenario to match a distinctly unlikely story, the results might be called a success, since nothing quite rings true in "M. Butterfly". *1/2 from ****

Of all the David Cronenberg movies I have seen 'M. Butterfly' is my least favourite, but that's certainly not to say that it is entirely worthless. Despite some flaws and a few dead spots it is still quite a fascinating film. One of the oddest things about this movie is that despite its general feeling of unbelievability it is based on a true story. Cronenberg adds to this by deliberately casting the rather butch John Lone, rather than a more obviously androgynous actor (ala 'The Crying Game', a movie this is often compared to). This makes the story more confronting and less comfortable, and also one assumes, closer to the actual facts of the case. Jeremy Irons, who was robbed of an Oscar in Cronenberg's previous 'Dead Ringers', is outstanding as usual, Lone (still mainly known for 'The Last Emperor') isn't as good, but still fine, and the supporting cast includes a nice turn from Brit veteran Ian Richardson ('Dark City'). Most Cronenberg fans will probably find this a bit difficult to get into, as the material isn't exactly typical of the director, but it's much better than its bad press makes out. I expected to hate it, and I didn't.

David Cronenburg brings this Eastern tale of love and betrayal from stage to screen in a 1993 film adaptation. Basic gist, a diplomat (Irons) is obsessed with the local opera in 1940s China, and falls head over heels for a lead singer (Lone), believing him to be a woman due to ignorance of the gender roles in Chinese theatre. However, this 'Butterfly' uses this to squeeze French Government secrets out of the hopeless diplomat for the 'Reds'.

Perhaps a little condensed from its original form, and not as visceral as Cronenburg's more famous works, 'M. Butterfly' still provides a well-produced and emotional tale of love, belief & deception. The key driving force of the film is really our two leads, with Irons being predictably solid as the typical middle class man of the era, though Lone is easily the bigger revelation. He is able to play both genders rather convincingly, and if I held up a picture of him to you without telling you who it is, you'd swear it was a woman. It's a combination of great make-up work and Lone's rather underrated skill to fully embrace the mannerisms of his role (see my praise of his work on 'Iceman' for more), playing up the submissive and ethereal qualities often tied to Oriental women, that make this performance so effective.

Everything else is par for the course: Cronenburg is a slick director and keeps the film trundling along at a good pace, the production values are lovely and give you the full scope of a changing China, and Howard Shore's score is suitably moving yet also enigmatic and does incorporate Puccini's 'Madam Butterfly' in at points, mainly towards the end. However, it's the script itself that does fall a little short: it's paced a little too quickly, and some scenes feel really condensed and choppy just to accommodate a film runtime, especially with regards to the relationship between our two leads, as well as the bigger changes in China. It some times feel a little to quick, and doesn't quite have the emotional punch it wants to. It's not bad, just a little deflated.

Despite that, I was pleasantly surprised by what is one of Cronenburg's lesser known titles, and it's worth checking out as a curio and for some great performances.

For all the weird, wonderful films David Cronenberg has made in his career, this may actually be the weirdest of all, by way of being an outlier. Over several decades of rejecting normalcy, 'M. Butterfly' - a romantic drama - is likely the most straightforward and conventional feature he has made. It feels more ordinary still for the ways in which it may briefly touch upon biting sociopolitical commentary, but not necessarily pervasively emphasize it as an element of the narrative as one may expect or even hope. It still manages to feel like classic Cronenberg, if only for the fact of the fundamental construction, including outstanding production design, rich shot composition, and camerawork. Denise Cronenberg's costume design is, of course, fabulous, and Howard Shore's original score is warm and stirring. Common Cronenberg collaborator Peter Suschitzky contributes marvelously lush, inviting, crisp cinematography, as he has elsewhere in the filmmaker's oeuvre. The substance within this structure is a different question, yet I've not watched any feature Cronenberg directed that was any worse than "average," so one way or another this earns my attention.

The abject forthrightness of 'M. Butterfly' is exemplified from the start as the plot and themes of the classic theatrical work is figured into early dialogue, belying the shape the movie itself will come to take to one degree or another. To this add a romance whose trajectory we can long foresee provided we've watched any other romantic dramas that bear political tones; the chief characters' involvement will inevitably have consequences for them both in some capacity. And even still - while glimpsing those harsh, jolting geopolitical truths of the 1960s, that still sadly remain relevant across the globe in 2022 - this title tends to lean more heavily into suggested LGBTQ themes, and the pointed sexism of patronizing and condescending to women.

Yet for all that this picture broaches, and all the striking concepts that could have been focused upon to great success, none seem to ever entirely find purchase to give 'M. Butterfly' utmost meaningful direction and form. I recognize significant potential. That potential, however, is scattered. To be sure, some aspects are more fully realized than others, and regardless, the story is satisfactorily compelling. The cast give performances of strong, admirable poise, and nuance - especially stars Jeremy Irons, and John Lone, who both command terrific screen presence. In the broad strokes I think this is written well. However, it kind of comes across as a title on autopilot: it progresses from A to B, from beginning to end, and passes distinct landmarks, but never really takes in the sights and sounds around it. It's a fine film, but a middling experience.

No doubt many others have sat to watch this and found it a much more rewarding film than I have. To each their own. To be clear, I definitely don't dislike it - there's much about it that's considered and done well. Only, the whole is somehow lesser than the sum of its parts, and nothing here truly captured my imagination, not even the final scene which is the nearest that 'M. Butterfly' resembles its Cronenberg brethren. Recommendable above all for fans of the filmmaker or the cast, it's still worth checking out on its merits. Ultimately, though, I just don' think this is a picture you need to go out of your way to see.

this film is compelling and haunting...have seen it only once, but its message of passion burned itself upon my memory for all time. that is my definition of a great film. would love to own a copy on DVD. I always look for it at stores but never have found even a VHS version. I have also been searching for a copy of Damage also starring Jeremy Irons...haven't found that one either. Why are the most artistic films, the ones that really have something to say, the last to make it to the after-market release of the film?? I have noticed that Jeremy Irons tends to portray emotionally crippled characters...it certainly works for him in this film!

If only he would have let "her" parallel park...this would have been a shorter film. Haha!

The "find me a baby, a blonde Chinese baby" scene was from another movie, right? Because it was hilarious. Call me old fashioned but I am the kind of guy who always checks for what pieces are down there, I like visual confirmation, I'm also a fan of watching those pieces down there.

I'm just sorry he was so naive. Because this is what it was all about. About a westerner being bamboozled by a Chinese spy. He caught him from the very start, he saw right through his fascination of the play and culture, and they were exploited to full effect.

The second half would have been formed differently today, to satisfy the new crowd that I will not name. But alas, it was not the story Cronenberg wanted to show.

If you only know David Cronenberg from the likes of "The Dead Zone", "The Fly", "Naked Lunch", "Crash" and "A History of Violence", then his "M. Butterfly" will come as a shock to you. This movie depicts the romance between a French diplomat and a Beijing opera singer in 1960s China as the Cultural Revolution is setting in.

Watching the movie, I wondered how much the outside world knew about mainland China. After the revolution, a lot of countries - namely the US - refused to recognize the People's Republic, considering Taiwan the only China. This movie makes clear that some non-communist countries were willing to maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC. The question in my mind is how much people knew about Red China, or even thought about it (especially considering that the US government acted as if it didn't exist).

OK, that was tangential. While it's not any sort of great movie, it's still worth seeing. Jeremy Irons and John Lone put in some impressive performances.

Even directors as acclaimed as David Cronenberg have to have some duds in their filmography. Enter M. Butterfly, the odd and empty story of a French civil servant agent who falls in love with an opera singer while working in Beijing. It is set during the cultural revolution of 1960's China as tensions rise due to uncontrollable issues. But the real problems stem from the relationship between Rene Gallimard and his lover, Song Liling, which takes an unforeseen turn when you least expect it.

This is just one of those films that is flat, dull, unconvincing, and just downright bland. So little happens for the first half of the film and what does happen is an uninteresting and unengaging romance that unfolds at an awkward pace with no real emotion or motivation behind it. This is a story that demands a lot of passion and emotion behind it in order to be truly compelling. The film falls flat here and never managed to keep my interest. The story here isn't terrible. It is based on a true story and that always adds a different element of intrigue, but the execution of this story is very poor. It could have been incredible, but I simply found nothing interesting here, at least for the first half.

After a while I asked myself just why Cronenberg directed a sappy foreign country romance like this. Then a very specific and completely unexpected element was introduced and I quickly found myself saying, "Aha. That's why Cronenberg directed this." The conclusion of this film is sudden and unfolds too quickly to have any real emotional force behind it. By this point in the film my interest in these characters and events had flat lined so I was only appalled and irritated by the direction this film had gone. There isn't a much easier way to put it other than it is simply not good and not fun.

It was quite the disappointment to see a lot of potential go to waste. I started out disliking this film and by the end I didn't like it any more than I had before, but I wanted it to be so much better and I longed for it to be more emotionally engaging in order to achieve the full affect which this story has the potential to do. But it just simply fell flat. It is evident that Cronenberg put some effort into this film but just missed the mark and managed to produce a dull and painfully uninteresting story out of something that could have been extremely intriguing. M. Butterfly is something different, but not really worth the watch.

I don't know why this movie didn't get more attention than it's supposed to. I like the two main actors both, who I think had a wonderful performance in this movie( although I keep wondering whether it will be another masterpiece if Leslie Zhang took Chung long's position in this movie.)

For those who love this story itself, you will definitely agree how this movie perfectly described a story which tells " only in real life could love become so unreal."

Also this is a good movie to watch if you are interested in the type of movie which entangle east and west, love and betrayal, passion and illusion...

This is David Cronenburg's best, based on a true story as bizarre and compelling as his other bizarre and compelling stories. John Lone is wondrous and Jeremy Irons is his usual cold, repressed upper class self. Perfect casting for a provocative director filming a moving story of love and loss.