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.