Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|The Fly /The Fly 2|
Actors: Eric Stoltz, Daphne Zuniga, Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, Lee Richardson
Directors: Chris Walas, David Cronenberg
Genres: Indie & Art House, Drama, Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy
The Fly — David Cronenberg's 1986 remake of the science fiction classic about a scientist who accidentally swaps body parts with a fly is both smart and terrifying: an allegory for the awful processes of slow death and a... more »
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Robin F. (MINI-NANA) from LOUISA, VA
Reviewed on 12/8/2007...
Don't be afraid to "Dive into the Plasma pool!" Jeff Goldblum is as feakish as ever...cool!
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Fly astounding, Fly 2 is terrible
N Ricciano | 08/05/2000
(2 out of 5 stars)
"MAN, I hope they release The Fly separately from Fly 2. I lovedGoldblum's Fly, one of the creepiest, most intense horror movies of all time, but the sequel is just trash - why did they have to slap this junk on the same DVD as a classic? Guess I'll wait for the solo Fly, if there is one... (Rating 5 stars for THE FLY, no stars for FLY II= two stars overall)"
The Fly/ The Fly 2
(5 out of 5 stars)
""The Fly" is one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. Both Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis give excellent preformances, and the film has wonderful direction by David Cronenberg. Being a fan of the orginal fly series ("The Fly" and "The Return Of The Fly"), I was extremely happy to see the remakes. Overall, "The Fly" is a masterpiece that deserves a better treatment than just trailers. It has a great plotline that amazes me after watching this movie many times. You can see why it was given an oscar for make-up. Chris Walas does an amazing job. Very suspenseful and effective. 5 stars."The Fly II", although an OK film, does not at all live up to it's predicessor. It has a plotline that barely passes. This is an unnessicary sequel if I have ever seen one. Most of the beginning is dull, although it does have it's moments. Few. As it winds down to the end, it becomes very, very gory. The first Fly remake was gross when Stathis' hand melted off, but this is disgusting. Mostly whan the guy's head blows apart, and whan the guy's head is spat on, resulting in one of the most gory sequences ever shot. Beware. It becomes dependent on the gore. The first film maintained suspense. Even with the gore, "The Fly II" is an OK film in my opinion. Although it lookes like director Chris Walas did all he could with it, I give it 2 stars.The combination of both films is genus, since I usually go out and buy a film and end up wanting to buy the sequel. I like to complete my colection of a series. The DVD is superior to the VHS in picture as well as sound. Buy it today. This combination on DVD gives a new meaning to the phrase "Be afraid. Be very afraid.""
An Underrated Delight! 3 Stars!
N Ricciano | Philadelphia | 12/01/2005
(3 out of 5 stars)
"While Croneberg's excellent remake of The Fly is easily in my top 10 favorite horror/sci-fi films of all time,I truly believe that The Fly 2 is a solid, well made, disturbing, and underrated "monster" film, which does a good job in continuing the story in a logical, yet surprising manner.
While I won't bother explaining the plot, considering that ANY sequel to Croneberg's darkly operatic film was doomed to be criticised (since Cronenberg's excellent film didn't need a sequel at all), I thought that Fly 2, while routine in spots, was actually quite creative and interetsing (and certainly better than most of today's watered down, unimaginative nonsense).
While the first Fly was an intimate film, where the "love story" played a large role, the Fly 2 is a much larger film, where the "love story" played a far smaller, functional role. (Yes, it was contrived, but really no more so than any other monster films (or even Croneberg's version), and, besides, someone had to push the button for Martin. ;-)
-While Seth's fly mutation in The Fly was an accident (which was triggered off by a drunken, passionate rage), Martin was born that way... and was essentially being kept as a test subject without his knowledge. Therefore, while Fly 1 had explored abortion, euthanasia, and how one deals with drug abuse, disease, and mortality, Fly 2 dealt more with the ethics of laboratory practices and genetic manipulation for profit (which is arguably far more relevant today, what with the various questionable advances in genetic exploration, and the unhealthy manipulation of our food and bodies by large corporations which have become more obviously corrupt, etc.)
Furthermore, I not only liked how Martin had accelerated growth, but how his mutation had played out in a different manner than his father's, for Martin wasn't actually "infected", he was BORN that way. Therefore, the eventual tranformation had a far more "natural" progression (what with the nicely done and intriguing "cocoon"), and he seemed far less "diseased" and far more "solid' and powerful than his father. (However, compare this with the Bartok-Fly creature, who, since he had been "infected" in much the same manner as Martin's father, was far more similar to the pink, diseased, and deformed look of Martin's father.)
- It's always nice to see how the son's journey is very similar to, yet different from, the father's. (Think Anakin and Luke Skywalker, or Vito and Michael Corleone, etc.)
- I liked how Stathus had become a drunk eccentric, yet deep down, was still a caring person. (Hey, who wouldn't lose their stuff after having gone through what he went through?!)
- I loved the disturbing "Freaks-like" ending.
Furthermore, as with Fly 1, Fly 2 raises several interesting questions. To name just a few...
-What if Geena Davis' character had lived, and had the baby without Bartok Industries having been informing, or what if the baby was given away for adoption... what would have happened 5 years later? Would the Fly creature have run amok in suburbia, and how would it have been "cured" when it wasn't near the pods? (When viewed in this manner, Bartok Industries keeping Martin-Fly as a "test subject" of sorts was actually the best thing to do (of course, arguably, for all the wrong reasons), for Martin-Fly would probably cause far less damage in the lab, and atleast he had access to the pods in order to "cure" himself.)
-Why did Geena Davis' character have the baby at all, and exactly how long was it after the end of the Fly?
- How did Martin perceive the world once he had fully mutated, and did he eventually express these thoughts and feeling to his girlfriend after he was "cured"? Furthermore, how did Bartok perceive the world once he had been horribly infected in literally a blink of an eye?
-Was Martin aware that the Bartok-Fly creature was being kept alive, and, if so, would he want it destroyed out of pity? Just what did become of Bartok?
- Since Martin had apparently swapped his "mutant Fly DNA" with that of Bartok's healthy DNA, how would this have changed Martin? In other words, how much of Martin is now Bartok? How has he changed?
While I wasn't all that wild about The Fly creature's face, all of the puppet FX were quite good (especially for the late 1980s) and did what they were supposed to do (especially on the emotional level. (Oh, and Stathus' "fake beard" hardly looked that fake... especially since the character was hardly onscreen). Furthermore, the face dissolving off was very well done and disturbing. Lastly, contrary to other people's opinions, The Fly 2 is really no more gory than Fly I. Allow me to explain..
Fly I: inside-out baboon, wrist breaking, horrible slow mutation of a human being, a hand and leg being dissolved, a Fly creature, a head exploding.
Fly II: a mutant dog, fingers being bitten off, a far less horrible slow mutation of a human being, a Fly creature, a face being horribly dissolved, a head being crushed, and the Bartok-Fly creature.
Now, as you can see, the gore isn't much different at all, it's just that Fly 2 had a more straight forward, 1950s monster movie aesthetic and mentality than the darkly operatic Cronenberg original.
- While the commentary with Chris Wallas, the director, and Bob Burns, Wallas' friend and long time film historian and props collector, was entertaining and lively, I wish that they would have concentrated far more on the actual film in question. (With that said, in addition to being a talented FX artist, it's a shame that Chris Wallas seemed overly humble (to the point of being self-depreciating) when it came to his directing work on Fly 2, for I thought that he did a fine job as a director for this sort of film. Furthermore, while the two documentaries were good, I wish that they would have focused more on their ideas behind the Fky creature's growth and appearance.
In short, while Croneberg's The Fly is indeed an excellent, 4 star classic (and, IMO, one of the best horror sci-fi films of all time), it is indeed slighly overrated, and Fly 2 is indeed somewhat underrated. Therefore, I strongly suggest that you purchase BOTH The Fly and Fly 2 special editions, for they don't make them like this anymore!