Did ‘The Fly 2’ need to be made?…not really…did they HAVE to go against the express wishes of one of the main characters and open with a terrifying birth sequence, made especially gross when you remember the last 10-15 minutes of the last film had that same character making it painfully clear that she wanted an abortion as soon as possible because she couldnt trust that what was in there wouldnt be born normally and LATER become a giant mutant killer fly?…Well…they did that anyway for some reason.
If ‘The Fly’ (1986) was smart body horror dealing with complex themes, subtext and interesting characters having nightmarish visions…’The Fly 2′ is dumb body horror. Its a sanding down of the deeper roots the original film tried to bed in. Some would say, its a cash grab. But I dont really think it is. I think this film actually wanted to try and do something, it just lacked the nuance and intelligence to really achieve it. I mean, hell, the film references David F. Freidmans ‘She Freak’ on at least a couple of occasions…if thats the calibre we’re shooting for here, its going to be a bumpy ride.
So the film picks up about 8 or 9 months after the events of the fly, and in the interim, COMPLETELY against ANY of the narrative of the first film, Veronica has decided to keep the baby, and she sort of got back with Stathis…though the exact nature of their relationships a bit in the air. The film opens with the birth, as a weird larval maggot thing breaks out of Veronica, killing her in the process, and then hatches into a baby.
Bartok, the company who funded the initial telepod project, decide to study the child as he’s shown to have ‘chromosonal abnormalities’ that are dormant, alongside other interesting developments, such as rapid aging and hightened intelligence. In fact, 12 months after the birth, Martins already essentially a fully grown kid. and within 5 years, an adult.
But things start to go awry, after Martin begins to rebel against essentailly being a constantly viewed 24/7 lab experiment, leading the CEO or Bartok (designated Martins Father) to offer him a private apartment and a job working on his dads old teleporter project.
YES! Of course they ripped the telepods out of Brundles old lab and dragged them back to Bartok, where they’ve been able to get them up and running, but the experiments they’ve done so far have basically led to a load of fruit being turned to pulp, and a dog that Martin grew very fond of, being reduced to a constantly in pain, yelping chaimera…Martin doesnt find out about that till a bit later though (so keep that one under your hat!)
Martin begins work on the telepods and after some trial and error is able to teleport a kitten successfully, he also meets a young woman called Beth, and the pair strike up a relationship. Though, it quickly becomes apparent that Bartok arnt being honest with Martin, both about his dad and his dads work…AND about the ‘privacy’ they’ve recently gifted to him. Add to this that Martin has begun to get sores all over his body, and he’s developing super strength, and…well, you can figure out whats going to happen when a kid who’s been lied to his all life by trusting figures and traumatised, suddenly develops ‘incredible hulk’ style strength and a taste for vengence.
I say ‘The Fly 2 is the dumb version of ‘The Fly’ but I dont really mean that in a mean way, its ultimately a quite well made, dumb fun movie if you ignore the forced birth opening, and any attachement it has to the original ‘Fly’ remake. If you take those elements away, it just becomes a slightly goofy (sincerely) fun little 80s monster movie. But treated as a direct sequel to the remake? Yeah…I can see how some people wouldnt care for this.
The scripts pretty decently paced, the first and second acts move at a reasonable pace, the transitions between acts is solid and they seem to have gone for a more colder, sci-fi horror angle here, largely getting rid of the slight tinge of humour the remake bedded in. Where it gets stuck for me is the 3rd act, once Martin brundle fly begins awakening, the film grinds to a halt, and basically turns into a 25 minute remake of the ‘vent shaft’ sequence from ‘Alien’…and its SO slow. painfully slow, to the point I started drifting away from the film, given that up to that point i’d been invested.
I dont know why they felt like they needed to spend so long having Martin work his way back to the telepod room, but it totally halts the film and kills any goodwill built up in momentum. Not to mention that (mild spoilers) the film bends itself into a pretzel to give this entry a happy ending…a happy ending that they had to ADR a definitive closure point onto because it isnt all that clear exactly WHAT the hell happens in those last few minutes.
Its a reversal of the ending of the first film, but in doing so it undercuts what made the first films ending so powerful, that its a bittersweet and bleak ending, because the first films whole subtext about the AIDs epidemic and toxic relationships, and that ending WORKS because, thats kind of what happens in real life.
The ending of this film is a bit of a nothing burger, because the film isnt really embedding any serious subtext into its writing, it isnt trying to say anything, so its ending is totally defanged. Why do I care about what happens to Martin Brundle, beyond the fact that I as an audience member know he’s been dealt a crappy hand in life, and wants to love someone? If there is subtext in this film, its very muddied, and not best handled is all I can say.
Again, thats not to take away that I enjoyed this film, the plot itself isnt anything too original, but it plays out well, the casting for it is pretty solid and while theres an unecissary cruel streak running through this film, it isnt dwelled on in the same way its done in the first film, which made it easier to move on from uncomfortable or unpleasent moments.
The direction? well, it isnt Cronenberg. its…fine. I always say, given my usual wheelhouse of cinema, that studio pictures are kind of too big to fail in terms of nailing the basics…the worst studio feature wills till adhear to the absolute basic rules of cine and direction, because they’re QA tested…in short, I can dislike what I see, but Its VERY unlikely i’ll go to the cinema and see something that fails an entry level film school requirement.
Did this blow my socks off? no. is it bad, absolutely not. its a solid set of direction, trying to keep in line with Cronenbergs style for continuity while also trying to inject Chris Wales style and vision in alongside it. I think it blends quite well, but its clear to see that Wales isnt fully in alignment with what Cronenberg did. leading to some moments that almost feel at odds with the messaging Cronenberg instilled in the first film. That being said, its competent, theres an attempt at experimentation…But there is a whiff of studio intereference about this one…
Same goes for the cine, its a bit flatter and more clinical than Cronenbergs efforts. For me, the most noticable change was how they handled the creature elements. Cronenberg prefers sickly effects. The vomiting scenes in ‘The Fly’ feel almost involuntary in nature as Goldblum sicks up white fluid in a very naturalistic and unpleasent way. Here? its dialled up to 11, the fly creature doesnt ooze, it high power sprays, they film it like a monster, where Cronenberg chooses to film the creature in a more human way, with longer held cuts and lower (but not fully low) angle shots to show that, the creature IS the dominant force of the shot, but IS still somewhat human.
Here? nah, its a monster, quick cuts, they make the fly man face…evil? for lack of a better word compared to the original. its all dominating low angle fast shots, which again, doesnt say to me that whoever made this really knows or understands the subtext fully…Again, like the direction, I didnt hate it, but I feel like it needed more colour, more B-roll, more experimentation in shot composition, and generally, just a bit more movement within the frame. everything feels a bit functional here, and while the practical effects are impressive, they arnt exactly breathtaking as of 1989.
Performance wise, its essentially a monologue piece for Eric Stoltz, and he’s fine. he comes across as an isolated traumatised kid turning into an adult. I think he kind of nails it honestly, there are a few turns where i’d have played quiter, but Stoltz goes louder…But I have no major complaints.
The rest of the cast? well…they kind of reek of ‘this is what the studio could afford’ sequel casting. its a bit mixed ability, some like Lee Richardson and Daphne Zuninga do fine, but others? not so much…throwing in that they couldnt afford to get Jeff Goldblum or Gina Davies back even in a cameo capacity (resorting to using clips and deleted scenes from ‘The Fly’ to fill those in) alongside the one actor (John Getz) who DID agree to come back, but feels noticably pissed off at having to be involved. makes the film feel a bit cheap honestly.
All in all, and rather bizarrely, while I think ‘The Fly’ (1986) is objectively the better movie by a country mile, But I think this may ultimately be the film I revisit more often, mainly because I find it easier to digest, less cerebral and…well, just kinda fun to watch really. I think if your a die hard Cronenberg fan, you may end up on the fence about this one, or absolutely hating it.
If you havent seen the previous ‘Fly’ film, You could probably still watch this film fine enough as just a generic monster movie… Its not SO wedded to the original that not watching that first would make you adrift. If anything, it may make you dislike this one even less honestly. Id say its worth checking out in either case, just, dont expect A+ material.
TYTD Reviews 