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 » monster movie with a tragic spin. Jeff Goldblum gives a masterful performance as a sweet, nerdy scientist whose romance with a writer (Geena Davis) makes him more fully alive. Next thing you know, a tiny oversight in an experiment causes him to transmogrify, gradually, into something more like an insect than a human. This is Cronenberg (Scanners, Videodrome) country, so expect The Fly to be a gross-out, but in the way that disease corrupts the body and can make a loved one unrecognizable on every level. This is one of Cronenberg's best films, and certainly one of the important movies of the 1980s. --Tom Keogh The Fly II
Chris Walas, the effects whiz who turned Jeff Goldblum into the gooey, grotesque Brundle-Fly in David Cronenberg's The Fly, makes his directorial debut in this equally icky sequel. Eric Stoltz is Brundle's genetically diseased offspring, a boy genius brought up in an experimental laboratory by a nefarious foster father eager to see what his inevitable metamorphosis will bring. No surprise here: like father, like son. Daphne Zuniga is his sweet young girlfriend, and John Getz reprises his role from the first film as a bitter alcoholic with a very bad fake beard. This cut- rate "Son of the Fly" knockoff pales next to Cronenberg's classic, degenerating into a gory revenge flick. Walas strains under a limited budget, and many of the more elaborate creatures (a monstrously mutated dog, the skeletal fly monster leaping about the warehouse-like lab) are rather shabby. The makeup is suitably gooey, slathered in ooze and pus, and the mayhem-filled finale is a nasty but impressive over-the-top frenzy of blood and gore climaxing in the nastiest piece of poetic justice since Freaks. The opening birth scene (with a look-alike subbing for mom Geena Davis) is an homage to Larry Cohen's It's Alive. --Sean Axmaker« less
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.
The Story: 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!
Well worth buying just for the first one...
N Ricciano | 05/31/2004
(5 out of 5 stars)
"Cronenberg's masterful remake of "The Fly" is, simply put, one of the very best sci-fi movies in recent memory. Much like his "The Dead Zone," it mixes a character's terrifying journey with a powerful love story, and manages to do so successfully. Poor Seth Brundle's transformation is disturbing, suspenseful, and gory indeed, but Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis bring such conviction and sadness to their roles, your heart is pulled along for the ride. The metaphor of watching someone you love succumb to a disease which changes them utterly, is just as shocking as the mutations Brundle's body undergoes. Enough said. This is a great and powerful, albeit sad, movie experience.
"The Fly 2" is far less successful. It's always good to see Eric Stoltz, who is a strong actor with lots of appeal, and although his career has proven that he's not exactly leading man material, he comes close to pulling it off here. But the movie takes the formula from the first movie and screws it up: the gore is heaped on while the love story takes a back seat to it. Daphne Zuniga and Stoltz just don't generate the kind of chemistry and compassion that Goldblum and Davis did. Instead, the movie is basically an F/X vehicle. Once the two pretty young people hit the sack, it's pretty much downhill into head-smashing, face-peeling splatter movie territory. Too bad.
But Cronenberg's movie will live on forever; this two-movie disc is well worth the price for anyone interested in a frightening, suspense-filled human drama which doubles as a pretty darn cool horror show, even if its sequel is vastly inferior."
David Cronenberg's The Fly, One of the Best Film's Ever...
email@example.com | Leominster, MA | 03/10/2001
(5 out of 5 stars)
"David Cronenberg's The Fly has got to be one of the most powerful films ever made. Too often it gets praised: "good for a horror film.", that is just pure ignorance. The Fly was one of the best films of the 1980's and one of the best films ever made, for few films have the impact this one does.Jeff Goldblum turns in the performance of his career as Seth Brundle, the brilliant, lonely scientist on the verge of a discovery that will certainly change the world. Geena Davis is also excellent giving a genuine performance as a skeptical reporter who falls for Brundle after he convinces her to check out his invention. What begins as a love story more involving and moving than any other film in the last twenty years, eventually turns to tragedy when Brundle tests his invention on himself and begins to lose all traces of his humanity. Slowly, Seth Brundle is metamorphasizing into a new breed of fly.What really works about Cronenberg's best film are the superb actors in the leads, a series of gruesome (maybe that's an understatement) yet convincing fx and a wonderful script by Charles Edward Pogue (who also penned the brilliant and complex Psycho III). The script centers on the humanity of the whole thing and never loses sight of the focus, not once. Pogue's script is about two people in love and the tragedy that befalls them, for Brundle does turn into a fly by the finish of the film, but it's all a metaphor for disease. Made in the 1980's when the AIDS virus was still a new and mysterious disease, Cronenberg's gutsy film also tells a story of a man being consumed by a terrible disease for which there is no cure.The Fly is a flawless film and a real treat for film lovers, horror fans, and those who just want to see a really good movie. It's just about one of the goriest movies you'll ever see, but if you're willing to go along, you won't be sorry and you'll never forget this film."