The Fly II

One of the sadder things about today’s taste for movie sequels is the correct, boring classification that goes with it. The film that was released in 1989 is entitled “The Fly II,” but it’s a fatigued movie if ever there was one.

“The Fly II” begins in the delivery room, where Martin Brundle, whose father, Seth Brundle, quite literally went to pieces in David Cronenberg’s 1986 version of “The Fly,” is being born. His mother, Veronica, played by Saffron Henderson, takes one look at him and dies, which is understandable, since Martin is born as a young insect.

However, Martin develops the appearance of a cute little baby, and he is a brilliant child, played by Matthew Moore at 4 and Harley Cross at 10, as well. Raised in a laboratory setting by Anton Bartok, played by Lee Richardson, the industrialist who has big plans for Seth Brundle’s teleportation machine, Martin develops so quickly that in five years he has grown up to be Eric Stoltz, or a nice young man in his mid-20s. Until this part, Martin’s in a lovely life and some of his only friendship comes from a golden retriever who is another of the laboratory’s experiment tests. This pet gives the film with a note of warning, since what happens to it shouldn’t happen to a dog.

Janet Maslin stated in her review, “Eventually, Martin discovers that he has inherited his father's mutant makeup, and that a slow, horrid transformation to insecthood is in the offing.” Mr. Cronenberg offered this process in fascinatingly seductive words, but the sequel has no equal humor or depth. As directed by Chris Walas, who provided some of the makeup and creature effects for the earlier film, “The Fly II” is skilled but hardly clever. Maslin stated, “The only respect in which it matches Mr. Cronenberg's ''Fly'' is in its sheer repulsiveness, since this film degenerates into a series of slime-ridden, glop-oozing special effects in its final half hour.”

Stoltz, who deserves better than a career spent behind makeup, is as unrecognizable in the last stages of this film as he was in “The Mask.” Also, Daphne Zuniga, as the laboratory coworker who falls in love with Martin, spends most of her time looking disappointed, a wise reaction to realizing she has been to bed with a man who’s half-bug. Reappearing from the earlier film is John Getz, as the magazine publisher who was Seth’s enemy for Veronica’s love. Getz gets the new film’s only laugh by stating that the experience of knowing Seth has cost him an arm and a leg. Actually, it has. Maslin ended her review by saying, “ONCE MORE INTO THE SLIME.”

I have to admit that this sequel is pretty forgetful. I wouldn’t recommend this movie at all, especially if you loved the first movie. How could they have made this horrendous sequel when the first one was so great? Why can’t filmmakers learn that instead of being concerned with making money, put in actual effort to making a good sequel? That’s how good sequels are made because the filmmakers put in effort and make it either good, or just as good as the first movie. Good sequels do exist, but they’re not as much as the bad sequels, unfortunately. I know that I have said this before so many times, but people really need to get the word out there and make the filmmakers put in actual effort to make sequels good again.

Now that I have that film off of my chest, that concludes “Fly-a-thon.” Check in tomorrow to see what else is in store for “Halloween Month.” The only hint that I will give away is that we are going to look at another classic made by the king of scary movies, Alfred Hitchcock himself, so stay tuned.

The Martian

Special treat today: I saw “The Martian” which came out not that long ago, so I will review it tonight. Out from the blackness comes something we thought we might never see again: a Ridley Scott movie that people will actually like.

“The Martian,” Scott’s adaptation of the best-selling book by Andy Weir, is a knockabout space adventure. Henry Barnes stated in his review, “A wide-eyed tribute to human ingenuity that packs enough snark to pull itself out of the black hole of earnestness, even if its fuel runs out partway through.”

Matt Damon stars as astronaut Mark Watney, left for dead on Mars after his crew is forced to evacuate from a dust storm. Stranded with only enough food and water to last a month, he’ll have to utilize his science thinking in the situation to survive. He gets to work: burning hydrogen to make water, rationing his remaining food stocks and growing more by terra-forming Mars with his own fecal matter. Back on earth, a sharp-eyed satellite controller, played by Mackenzie Davis, notices Watney’s movement and calls his superiors – A-type NASA suits played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, musician Jeff Daniels and the hot Kristen Wiig. They’ll argue with the moral problem of whether or not to tell the rest of Watney’s crew, led by the hot Jessica Chastain’s mission commander, that he’s still alive and risk them turning around to help him.

Barnes said that, “Weir is a space nut who once designed software to plot a successful course to the red planet and The Martian is sci-fi leaning heavy on the science. His book - self-published before it became a hit on Kindle, then stormed the best-seller charts – is research-heavy. It doesn’t spare his readers any of the cosmic nuts and bolts.” Every single one of the specialist word lists makes it into Drew Goddard’s script, but the same goes for Watney’s sarcastic streak, delivered in some style by Damon. Barnes said, “He’s a tough character to pilot, this sceptical geek know-it-all, but Damon has the charm and wit to land some tricky one-liners.”

A galaxy of stars orbit Damon with not that much to do. Ares III, Watney’s crew’s ship, is home to a pilot (Michael Peña), a navigator (Kate Mara) and a chemist (Aksel Hennie), but they’re all, despite their talents, rather ordinary. Back on Earth Wiig’s PR specialist is sort of sharp, Ejiofor’s mission controller is a bit nice and Daniels’ NASA boss is a bit nasty. Even Watney, supposedly a symbol of hope for all humanity in the final act, is – once the jokes wear off – pretty dull. Still, Scott has a lightness of touch that was absent from “The Martian’s” closest companion: Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar.” Barnes said, “That theory-heavy behemoth, which also starred Chastain and Damon, makes Scott’s film feel light as air.”

With “Alien,” Scott went to space and found horror. With “Prometheus” he came back after recovering from something horrible (Barnes mentioned, “Although, interestingly, the space suits in that wonky misadventure and this new film are very similar”). “The Martian” floats between them. It is not fantastic, in either sense, but it does show-off a sense of play. For a survival flick it’s actually pretty light on risk (Barnes said, “You never really believe that the Jordanian desert, where the film was shot, is Mars”), but it’s not short of thrills.

It’s also a great advantage for NASA. Space exploration here is nothing but noble, exciting and worthwhile. Barnes concluded, “Mark Watney, urging his space rover along through the plains of the Acidala Planitia, is pursuing a new manifest destiny. A sucrose coda (added, unnecessarily, to book’s matter-of-fact finale) suggests that we’d be fools not to follow him.”

If you haven’t been able to go out to the theater to watch this movie, I would strongly recommend everyone to go out and see it. It’s not like last year’s “Interstellar,” which was about three hours. You will get into it really fast and you will be rooting for Watney from beginning to end because you want him to be rescued and get back to Earth. I’m not going to spoil anything, but definitely see this one, it’s worth it.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I conclude “Fly-a-thon.”

The Fly (1986)

Now we get to the 1986 remake of “The Fly.” Director David Cronenberg has always been fascinated with the changing of the human body in every form – mutation, drug addiction, etc. – and the horror and dislike that naturally results. In other words, he is able to develop natural fears through supernatural means. The re-working of the 1958 horror classic “The Fly” gave him productive ground to explore this theme.

A scientist, Seth Brundle, played by Jeff Goldblum, with motion sickness tries to invent a teleportation machine. He almost gets it right, but his dedication to all things scientific and his ignorance of human interaction become his collapse. His computer does not know what to do when a fly enters the pod along with poor Seth and the machine splices them together. At first Seth feels great, but slowly finds himself losing body parts as he mutates into a fly. Cronenberg steps-up the story by introducing Veronica, played by Geena Davis, a beautiful reporter who falls for Seth at exactly the wrong time.

Jeffrey M. Anderson stated in his review, “Charles Edward Pogue and Cronenberg's intelligent script and Goldblum's heartfelt performance make this outlandish story perfectly feasible.” The original film had no such explanations. It simply shows a scientist trying out his new machine and coming out with the head and right arm of a fly. Cronenberg makes his movie more scientific and far more personal, showing Seth wrestling head on humankind’s biggest fear: the crumble of the body.

Anderson mentioned in his review, “The Fly grows yet another layer when it's revealed that Cronenberg himself suffers from chronic motion sickness.” Only a master filmmaker of the highest quality could make a masterpiece from that.

Obsessed with the horrifying suggestions of a combination of science, technology and the powerful prospective of the human mind, body and gender, Cronenberg had created several highly personal films over the previous 15 years. While the concepts of these films are interesting and unique, the films themselves were rather rough. Careless, poorly cast, underbudgeted, and sometimes confused, there was also not enough attention paid to the development of characters as complex, emotional human beings. With his decision to remake the 1958 classic “The Fly,” Cronenberg found the perfect opening for his obsessions, producing his most controlled, mature and insightful work to date.

“The Fly” succeeds on many levels. Cronenberg has never obtained better performances from his players. Goldblum is inspiring in a rare leading role. Davis is also in top form. As a couple, they are so convincing and appealing that you regret knowing that their love story will soon become a tragic horror movie.

TV Guide mentioned in their review, “As a remake, THE FLY transcends the original, taking it in new directions and exploring its underutilized potential.” Whereas the original collapsed into a campy fly hung, the remake chooses for a slow change from man to fly that develops as a disease might. This gives Cronenberg time to examine the suggestions of such a process, considering upon our fear of disease, death and change.

In the end, I would say check this movie out. This is one of the good horror remakes, considering how a lot of them suck really badly. However, this is one of those exceptions where the remake is actually really good.

Sadly, much like the original, this film had a sequel, which I don’t see why they would make that, as this one did not end on a note that there would be a sequel. How is the sequel? Well, you just have to watch out until tomorrow where I conclude “Fly-a-thon.”

Curse of the Fly

Alright, now we are going to look at the third in the “The Fly trilogy,” “Curse of the Fly,” released in 1965. Dennis Schwartz opened his review up by saying, “Tasmanian-born B-film director Don Sharp ("Hennessy"/"Kiss of the Vampire"/"The Face of Fu Manchu") helms the odd third leg in "The Fly" series, after The Fly and Return of the Fly. It's scripted by Harry Spalding, and is based on George Langelaan's short story.” The producer is Robert L. Lippert, which is a modest effort, and has some interesting touches (especially notable is the opening segment) and a nicely created supernatural atmosphere, but overall the film is disappointing as it never is exciting – just too much talk over pseudo-science.

Pat Stanley, played by Carole Grey, a former concert pianist, breaks a window and escapes from the Fournier Mental Hospital, scantily clad. Passing nighttime motorist Martin Delambre, played by George Baker, gives her a ride to Montreal and doesn’t interrogate her. Even though he sets her up for a week in his hotel they fall in love and marry, as they agree to keep their secrets to themselves. Back at his solitude Quebec lab headquarters, Martin keeps to himself that his secret is that he’s hit with a strange problem that causes him at times to increase the pain while flashing signs of fast aging and that his mad scientist father Henri Delambre (Brian Donlevy), him and his London-based brother Albert (Michael Graham) are third generation of Delmabres involved in teleporting experiments that are wrong and have resulted in a compartment of horror. The mad scientists keep Martin’s pianist first wife Judith, played by Mary Manson, and two former lab assistants locked away in the stables after unfortunate results from their teleportation experiments left them deformed as mutants (part human and part fly). Henri believes he has finally mastered the way to break down solid matter and teleport it somewhere else, and is anxious to use his new equipment before police Inspector Ronet, played by Jeremy Wilkins, searching for Pat, gets a search warrant to the ground.

Things go wrong when Pat catches on that something strange is going on here, and Henri in his rush uses the teleporter on himself without first checking if Albert – the only family member who is normal as he did not become heir to his grandfather’s ‘fly curse’ genes – has hooked up the recombining machine part. A distressed Albert has instead smashed the machine, no longer willing to participate in these brutal experiments. It results in Henri’s atoms scattered like ashes. Pat is set to suffer the same fate, but Martin, who is not as crazy as his dad, rescues her from the machine but in his rescue effort finds himself aging fast and he immediately dies. Wouldn’t you know it; Pat is cured of her mental illness. Schwartz speculates, “It seems Pat suffered from an oppressive parental upbringing and now with no such authority figure around she's as sane as anyone at Hammer studio.”

The film’s funniest line has Brian Donlevy saying, “We’re scientists, we have to do things we hate.” It’s original moments like that which give it some fun value that make it tolerable despite its weak script, lazy acting and cheap makeup.

For curiosity case, I would say check it out, but I wouldn’t highly recommend it, even if you didn’t like “Return of the Fly.” The movie was produced in England with no Vincent Price and no fly, but how many times could that happen anyway? It is an interesting movie that I would say watch, but if you don’t like, I understand. I’m not a fan of the movie myself, but I do agree that it had an interesting story.

Now I believe that I mentioned that they did remake “The Fly” in the 80s, which happens to be the one that everyone remembers and not the original 50s movie. How is that? Stay tuned tomorrow in the continuation of “Fly-a-thon” to find out in this year’s “Halloween Month.”

Return of the Fly

Fox didn’t waste any time in capitalizing on the success of “The Fly.” Released in theaters less than a year after the original film succeeded, “Return of the Fly,” released in 1959 (described by Brett Gallman), “looks like a quick-and-dirty B-movie cash-in of a film that transcended its own monster movie trappings.” The second time around can’t quite have that, but it can have Vincent Price come back in the cast for one of horror’s more underrated sequels, as it’s one that doesn’t simply go directly into the same path as its predecessor.

We begin about fifteen years after the film’s events, at Helene Delembare’s funeral. Even though “The Fly” ended with the kind of optimistic claim that everyone had moved on, we learn that Helen never quite recovered from her husband’s death, nor did her son Philippe, played by Brett Hasley, who up surrounded by whispers of his father’s unfortunate passing. Now an adult, he insists on following in his father’s footsteps by resurrecting his old teleportation device, and he even begs his uncle into joining him in the plan. Also on the team is an assistant named Alan Hines, played by David Frankham, a man whose secrets send this attempt circling into deadly consequences.

Gallman states, “One thing Return of the Fly recycles from The Fly is its pot-boiler mentality; the film doesn’t just begin with someone being transformed into a giant fly, even if that’d be an understandable route to go since there’s no sense of mystery this time. However, even this follow-up eases into things a bit, though it eschews the previous movie’s romance for crime and detective story beats when Hines is revealed to actually be a hardened criminal out to steal the Delembares’ technology, which is the subplot that eventually results in Philippe following in his father’s footsteps by becoming commingled with a fly.” It’s probably a little contrived, but Hines is a sadist with a real mean streak. Actually, the British secret agent that first slaughters him out gets joined to a guinea pig. One half of that hideous mixture ends up at the bottom of the river, while the other, rodent-sized part ends up squished under Hines’s heel in a harshly unsettling moment that’s cored by the poor creature’s squeals.

Up until that point, Frankham has just been somewhat of a weakling who’s continuously able to wriggle his way out of trouble. It’s a really nice performance that even Price himself would have been proud of, and it’s only made better when he goes completely heel for the film’s second half. Anyone who expected the original “The Fly” to be a straight monster movie will be pleased to finally have that during this part of the film, where “Return of the Fly” finds Philippe after he merges with the fly stalking the countryside while finding Hines. Obviously, you actually see a lot more of the protagonist, and there’s special little time spent on repeating the plot points from the previous film. Instead, this is more of a fast story of revenge that’s a bit joltier and violent than what came before. There’s no subtle scare factor and scientific fear, both of which are switched with the giant fly leaping out of the shadows.

“Return of the Fly” is better for this though. It’s very much the opposite of “The Fly,” right down to visuals. Gallman said, “Whereas that film was awash in disarming pastels, this one is sketched in shadowy black and white.  The original Fly really is an odd duck; while it’s no doubt creepy, it’s almost sneakily so and juxtaposes quaint Americana with gothic horrors.” This sequel goes towards the later right from the start by opening at a funeral before going forward to the old Delembare laboratory. Now covered in cobwebs and realized by an even older, rusty set, it looks like something out of one of the Universal classic, and the father following the trail of his own father even echoes something like “Son of Frankenstein.”

Price’s role (which is also given more from the first film) and his creeping around mansions foreshadow the run that would name his career. Gallman describes, “1959 along found him stalking similar old dark abodes in House on Haunted Hill and The Bat.” “Return of the Fly” gives Price the chance to star in the protagonist role, which is something he wouldn’t do a whole lot of in the next decade. You might remember that he was mostly sidelined in “The Fly,” at least until that last memorable sequence. Not like that here, as he commands the film pretty much from start to finish, leaving everyone else (with the exception of Frankham) flying as background noise. In addition to more of Price, you also get more of the fly as well, and the creature design is actually more pronounced and hideous in keeping with the monster movie vibe.

It’s fair to call “Return of the Fly” a B-movie to a classic horror film, but that isn’t automatically a bad thing in this situation. Sequels that go out of their way to provide a little different flavor from their predecessors should be applauded, especially when they work as well as this one does. Plus, at the end of the day, you’re getting more of Vincent Price and more of a killer fly. Gallman commented, “Fox has made it easy for you to stage your own double (or triple!) feature, as Return comes as part of The Fly Collection along with the original and Curse of the Fly. This first sequel fares well enough with a strong presentation that includes a crisp anamorphic transfer and a solid mono soundtrack.” As this is the strong middle chapter to an underrated franchise, you’ll want to stick it on your shelf.

I would say just check this one out. James Rolfe described this as “the poor man’s version of the first one, but it’s good ole, cheesy fun.” I don’t say that I like this one over the first movie, since that is a classic that can’t be topped, but despite the fact that it may be bad, it’s nowhere near horrible. Watch the sequel and enjoy it for what it is.

Check in tomorrow when I look at the third movie in this trilogy.

The Fly (1958)

Does anyone out there hate flies? Well, let’s talk about a series of films that revolve around flies. It “flew” in 1958, “The Fly” did – and guys, hang on to your seats. This Twentieth Century-Fox fantasy-thriller, which the company is advertising as the actual end in horror, landed at more than 100 neighborhood homes.

Howard Thompson mentioned in his review, “It does indeed contain, briefly, two of the most sickening sights one casual swatter-wielder ever beheld on the screen.” At one part, the hooded protagonist reveals his head exactly like a giant-size fly. Thompson goes on to say, “And the climax, when this balcony-sitter nearly shot through the roof, is a fat close-up of a fly, with a tiny, screaming human's head, trapped by a spider on its web.” To any random customer expecting a nice slumber, watch out! Short as these two scenes are, there’s no avoiding them.

Otherwise, believe it or not, “The Fly” is actually one of the better, more controlled items of the “shock” genre. As produced and directed by the late Kurt Neumann, with a serious little cast leaded by Al Hedison, Patricia Owens and Vincent Price, this is a quiet, organized and even humble movie, building up almost excruciating tension by simple suggestion.

Most of it takes place in and around the brightest of homes, that of a highly likable young Montreal scientist (Hedison), his wife (Owens), and their son (Charles Herbert). One of the most appealing things about the movie is the beautiful humor and chilling contrast of the everyday setting, nicely framed in color and Cinema-Scope. However, the most appealing of everything is the compassion mixed in with the suspense when something terrible happens in Hedison’s basement laboratory.

Thompson mentioned that, “This altruistic chap some-how has evolved a method of electronically disintegrating objects, then materializing them at a distance.” Unwisely, he experiments with himself, a housefly interrupts, and – boom! – His and the fly have proportionately exchanged heads.

We learn this slowly, piece by piece, in the frantically untidy messages he writes his scared wife. The idea is to find the fly, still flying about the location, put the two of them back together in the transportation device and turn it on again.

If this story, adapted by James Clavell from an original by George Langelaan, sounds like a highly amusing cry, it doesn’t play that way. Not with, the shaking, hooded man grabbing at a blackboard for “Please help – find fly – LOVE YOU.”

The look of Owens, Herbert and Kathleen Freeman, the cook, stalking the little flies upstairs is enough to freeze anyone in their seats. Even the “murder” flashback that lengths the entire film finally clicks into place logically as a pity murder.

This is quite a little film. Even with the laboratory silliness, it holds an interesting philosophy about a person messing with the unknown, Herbert Marshall, as a police inspector, speaks softly like a fly’s buzz. All the others, including Vincent Price as a family friend, are fine.

Thompson ended his review by saying, “By deftly easing some nice people in and out of a situation as pathetic as it is horrible, Mr. Neumann has wrought the most originally suggestive hair-raiser since "The Thing."”

My final verdict is that you should check it out. Not only does it have a scare value, it has a really emotional feel that makes you want the main character to succeed in getting the fly back. Especially with one of the best lines that is also creepy, “Help Me! Help Me!” If you haven’t seen this film yet, definitely check it out. I’m sure you will like it.

If you can believe this, this film actually had two sequels. I will look at the first one tomorrow in my “Fly-a-thon” for “Halloween Month.”

Mighty Joe Young (1998)

“Mighty Joe Young,” released in 1998, is an energetic, strong adventure story: not too sarcastic, violent or disjointed for kids, not too tame for adults. Roger Ebert admitted, “After all the calculation behind "Godzilla" or "Armageddon," it has a kind of innocence.” It’s not about a monster but about a very big, well-meaning gorilla that just wants to be at peace, alone. Also, it’s about a woman who treasures her gorilla. Also, it’s about a zoologist who loves the woman. All of the usual we’ve seen.

Charlize Theron plays Jill Young, a woman whose mother (Linda Purl) is a famed gorilla expert of the “Gorillas in the Mist” variety. Jill (Mika Boorem as a child) is raised with Joe, who even as a baby is big for his size. They grow up together, and Joe just keeps on growing, until you can tell he’s getting there because the treetops shake.

Bill Paxton stars as Gregg O’Hara, a zoologist who wants samples of Joe’s blood. Unfortunately, the people that he hires as assistants are crooked and try to sell information about the gorilla to a slimy promoter named Strasser, played by Rade Sherbedgia. This same Strasser is a poacher with a history with Joe, who once bit off his thumb and forefinger.

The African scenes are remarkable in the sense they create a convincing giant gorilla and position him in the wild. The majority of the shots of Joe in this movie are special effects. We don’t really look at a real gorilla that often. You can’t tell that by anything on the screen – aside from Joe’s size, of course. Joe isn’t simply seen as he trudges past. The camera is free to roam and approach him. In a sequence where he’s being pursued by men in Land Rovers, the camera comparables him, then swings in front of him, then moves in for a close-up. It’s a remarkable demonstration of technical skill.

Close-ups of Joe’s face and upper body use amazing animatronics. The only thing uncertain about Joe is his attitude. When Jill embraces and comforts him, he’s more like a gentle little chimp than a fearsome animal. His eyes, lips and facial movements are expressive even in the close shots. Theron treats him like a pet, whistling to make him approach her, sure of her authority.

The romance between Theron and Paxton is inevitable, but not disturbing. It’s more of a required subplot than a big deal. More interesting is the tricky scheming of Strasser and his henchmen, after Joe is brought to California. There’s a scene where Joe gets scared at a charity benefit, and then the payoff as he levels Mann’s Chinese Theater, visits the Hollywood sign and ends up in that dependable shelter of all thrillers, a carnival midway, where a child is in danger on top of a Ferris Wheel.

Ebert mentioned, “The payoff of that scene owes more than a little to a certain scene in "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," and indeed the director, Ron Underwood, shows he's studied "E.T." carefully. An early scene, of poachers in the jungle, is framed much like the early hunt for E.T. The camera is at boot-level, there are loud jangles of keys and weapons on the soundtrack and powerful flashlight beams cut Spielbergian laser-tracks through the mist.”

One positive part is the film’s comparative courtesy. So many special-effects movies seem angry and aggressive. Smaller kids run out of the theater by the loud noise and special effects. “Mighty Joe Young” is not gentle and harmless. It’s a full-blooded action flick, all right, but with a certain warmth and humor instead of an Earth is on fire approach. You feel good at the end, instead of merely relieved.

I wouldn’t say which version of “Mighty Joe Young” is better, but I would probably prefer the original, even though I liked this version also. I would say check it out and sit down with the whole family to watch it since it is a Disney movie; the whole family can watch it. Kids won’t get scared by it, and this is one of those Halloween movies that kids will be able to watch as well.

Well, I hope all of you liked my ape movies, stay tuned tomorrow to see what I have in store next for “Halloween Month.”