TYTD Reviews

…Its ‘Jurassic Park’ Everyone, there mamas and their dogs has seen ‘Jurassic Park’ or at least KNOWS what ‘Jurassic Park’ is about. Almost certainly one of Spielbergs top 5 greatest works, and probably one of the finest films of the 20th century. Its a 2 hour amusement park of a ride and its incredible that it was made in 1993 frankly.

Thes script, thrilling, gripping, adventurous and not afraid to be whimsical, with my only criticism being a nitpick ultimately (I feel like the 2nd act is a little on the slower side than i’d have liked, and runs a bit longer than I would have wanted) otherwise, its decently paced, solidly written, funny and thoughtful. Essentially the culmination of Spielbergs other efforts from the past 2 decades up to this point.

The direction, flawless, I literally cant think of anything he could have done better here, same with the cine, same with the scoring…all immaculate, there isnt a frame of this picture i’d change really.

And casting? Pfft…Sam Neil, Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern? NOT TO MENTION Richard Attenbourough. FORGET ABOUT IT. just…*chefs kiss*

What Jaws did for audience goers in the 70s, Jurassic Park did for 90s kids. And while I personally think it maybe does run just a *bit* longer than I personally would have liked, I cant deny that this is essential cinema, an apex of practical effects in the analogue age, and the peak of digital effects performance for the time.

It more than holds up even today, and barring a couple of swears, its pretty much the perfect family movie. great stuff!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/jurassic-park/

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.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-fly-ii/

Realistically, I dont really have any faults with this film. Or rather, the faults I have with this film are somewhat neglegable all things cosidered. The 1986 Remake of ‘The Fly’ is a textbook example of the concept of taking an older concept that worked in one style or genre, and translating that idea through the mind of a unique individual into something that would be considered simultaineously modernising and genuinely terrifying.

The original take on ‘The Fly’ was a horror thriller with a dash of sci fi and a tongue planted firmly in its cheek, with age, the original has more campy horror, border comedy value than it does as a true sci-fi horror film.

David Cronenbergs remake here, takes the bare bones of ‘The Fly’ story and runs them through the mind and lens of a man who, up to this point had given us ‘Shivers’, ‘Videodrome’, ‘Scanners’, ‘The Brood’ amongst many, many others…a key motif of Cronenbergs directional aesthetics revolves around body horror, the corruption or evolution of ‘The Flesh’ and the reluctant transformation of a being into something truely incomprehensible…In short, David Cronenberg was probably the single greatest choice to direct this film, and its frankly amazing the planets aligned in the way they did.

And like I say, I dont really have any notes honestly, the scripts rock solid with great naturalistic diaglogue, unusual twists and turns, a much MUCH darker, gorier, sinister and unsettling tone that makes the original feel like a saturday morning kids cartoon. The pacings razor, the plotting is genuinely impactful and really tugs on the audiences emotions. the act structuring is rock solid.

Cronenberg translates the writings of George Langelaan into an alagory for toxic relationships, and the growing Aids epidemic, creating one of the more unsettling pictures i’ve sat through. In fact, the only reason this isnt a 4 and a half stars from me, is purely because the film deals with themes that are so unsettling to me, that while I genuinely appreciate a challenge to my constitution, this isnt a film I feel like I could watch regularly without becoming seriously depressed.

The direction is incredible, especially for the time, with amazing set work, fantastic camera and lighting choices. rock solid attention to detail on every facet of the studio production. barring a couple of practical effects pieces that are only now 40 years on beginning to creak a little, this is an incredible piece of work, and while I dont think i’d personally consider it Cronenbergs best, it would almost certainly be Top 5 for me.

The cine is brilliant, with sharp cuts, experimentation out the wazoo, solid attention to detail on sequence building and an edit that is just…breathtaking, with the cuts being held JUST long enough to communicate with the audience more than an essay could on the mindset of an ever spiralling Brundle.

and the performances? get outta here, Geena Davies? Jeff Goldblum?! John Getz?!? GET. OUTTA. HERE. incredible.

add in a distinct and suspensful score that genuinely had me on the edge of my seat, and all in? I was beyond impressed. I last saw this movie probably 15-20 years ago, on a small portable TV, on terrestrial TV, intercut with commercials every 15 minutes. Seeing the scream factory bluray this afternoon melted my brain like a double scoop left out in the sun.

Incredible craftsmanship, I think if your studying film, a double feature of this and the original ‘Fly’ is a must. If your a horror fan, I dont need to tell you to check this one out.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-fly-1986/

Y’know, it always warms my heart when a bad movie has the absolute stones to end their movie with a caption saying something to the effect of ‘IS THIS THE END?!’ implying that a sequel is all but guarenteed. Its a mindset that brings with it such a sense of reassurance about its own future, that I cant help but crack a grin when I look into it and find that either a sequel DID happen, but was a ‘clean slate’ restart BECAUSE that initial film was so bad…or that no sequel ever materialised, as is the case with ‘Curse of the Fly’.

This is the final entry in the original ‘Fly’ series. and It just…really did absolutely nothing for me. This entry is only very tenuously connected to the first two films, and whoever wrote/directed/managed continuity for this series really didnt do their homework at all, because this entry is set far FAR into the future and introduces Henri and Martin Delambri…who are these guys? Well; Henri is Andre (the original fly pod creators) OTHER child, who we have LITERALLY not heard of or seen up until this point. and Martin is Henris son. We’re getting quite far removed from the original events.

This film was entirely shot in England, and only really exists because Producers Robert L. Lippert and Jack Parsons had some extra cash in their pockets, a dormant franchise they’d kind of wanted to pull out of storage and a dozen or so actors working on other projects for them, who had free time to spare…So they got Don Sharp in, gave him ZERO steerage beyong telling him they wanted him to make a ‘Fly’ movie, and when he asked for more information to help give him SOME steerage on what the hell they ACTUALLY wanted. They allegedly just slapped the guy on the back and said ‘You handle it kid.’

And…this is the result; an 86 minute garble of a movie that really feels less like a ‘Fly’ film, and more like a badly orchestrated generic ‘Monsters crash the Pyjama party’ type feature that…even at only 86 minutes, long outstays its welcome…THERE ISNT EVEN A FLY MAN IN THIS MOVIE…WHAT IN THE EVERLOVING CHRIST IS GOING ONE?!!?

So; the film opens with a woman escaping in her underware from a mental hospital, where shes found on the roadside by a chap named Martin. Martin tries to coax the woman to go with him, and at first shes reluctant, but eventually agrees because…shes almost naked, its autumn in the UK…and a girls gotta eat.

And apparently, thats all it takes to start a relationship in 60s England. Because only a scene or two later, the womans revealed her name is Patricia and her and Martin are having a nice expensive dinner at a hotel, and Martins offering to pay for her to have a room.

And its here really that the ‘fly’ element of this movie is revealed almost entirely…Martin is the grandson of Andre, who built the original fly pod, and him and his dad Henri have been working on ‘perfecting’ the transportation pod, and its basically almost ready to go! they’ve demonstrated that they are able to transport people between the US and London, and once they’ve found a way to stabilize the process it should be good for domestic shipping! What issues still need to be worked out? Well…it turns out that regular use of the transport pods can cause irriversable cellular degredation…basically necrosis but over your whole body…Oh! and also, if ANY kind of living matter gets into the pod with the traveller, even bacteria…the traveller has a high risk of permanently transforming into a creature beyond the comprehension of our wildest horrors…So y’know…no big.

Its also revealed at this point that Henri has suffered some degree of degredation, with his back being horribly scarred and deformed. and Martin…SOMEHOW, has a recessive genetic mutation from his grandfather, which means if he doesnt get regular injections, he slowly starts to turn into a fly man…Which really only borks the continuity even harder because it means that Helene from the first movie had to have boinked the fly man because…theres no other way Martin could have inhereted fly genes…but the BIGGEST crime this film commits (and I am SAVING you here from an hour and 26 of cinematic loitering) he DOESNT EVEN TURN INTO A FLY MAN…AND NO FLY MAN/MEN ARE IN THIS MOVIE.

Anyway; the bulk of the film is basically Martin and Patricias blossoming romance, continued experimentations with the transfer pods, and a subplot in which Burt Kwouk and a woman in ‘yellow face’ play housekeepers to Henri who have a stable full of deformed mutant transfer pod failures in the back yard, that they feed scraps to, and who inevitably eventually break out to cause mahem.

The first half of the film is more romance driven with science fiction elements, and the back end is basically a walkthrough of a haunted house, as Patricia slowly discovers for herself the horrors Henri and Martin have created, and the untold risks they’re working with in trying to perfect teleportation…and somehow between the racism, lack of fly people and low budget fawning…they STILL manage to make a film that fails to really do anything it sets out to achieve.

This entry in ‘The Fly’ series was, for a time notoriously hard to get a hold of, only recieving a DVD release (its first release since its theatrical run) as late in the day as 2007. and at first you may be inclined to think this was an overlooked entry that may hide hidden treasure…but you’d be wrong, it likely didnt get a release, because it just isnt really all that interesting or good.

The scripts painfully slow, we spend way too much time bogged down in technical jargon, arguments between Henri, Martin and his team, the romance plot with Patricia and Martin, and a weird B-plot in which Patricia lies to Martin, claiming she was in the mental hospital looking after an elderly writer, only for it to IMMEDIATELY be debunked about 10 minutes after its said when a woman turns up claiming she was committed after a mental breakdown caused by the death of her parents…and that plot point, goes. NOWHERE.

I suppose its here to try and give the audience the sense that this is a fragile woman who shouldnt be shacking up with a scientist who’s slowly turning into a fly unless he gets his injections, who has a stable filled with mutations…But the two plot points are never really connected. Or rather, the way Patricia as a character reacts when she finds out everything thats been going on, is no different to how anyone would probably react if they found out what was going on…In fact, at multiple points through the film, they make it VERY clear to stress that she’s ‘Much better now…’ So I dont even really know WHY they bothered in the first place.

the tone isnt all that clear, the other films were campy horror efforts with a sci fi twist, this? this seems to WANT to be a romance, it kind of wants to be a creature feature, but doesnt seem to know how best to approach it, the sci fi elements feel a bit laboured. I dont know what it really wants to do, it cant seem to definitively pick a lane honestly.

The core cast are kind of well defined. But they arnt really as likeable or interesting as the first two films, and it feels like nowhere near enough care was given to them in terms of getting to what their character arcs and needs were… Not to mention that the continuity issues really dont help either. It probably would have been better to have made this a clean break, and had it just been about two scientists who stumble on Andres work and try to make a go of it, rather than tying it back into the original films, because all that does is really muddy the timelines. whether its finding out Andre had hidden children, Helene bonked the fly man, or that, becuase they didnt check the continuity hard enough, a still they claim is a photo of fly man Andre, is in fact a grown up Fly Man ‘Phillipe’…which creates EVEN MORE continuity issues.

The dialogues naff, the act structurings wonky, it really does feel like a production that was made, simply because there were scraps and a bit of cash left over from other films…and while there are a couple of okay moments VERY heavily spaced out…its ultimately not enough to keep my attention fully on the movie.

The direction too is overly safe, while it is nice to see the special effects make a return after the last films overreliance on cutaways and stock footage, it again really isnt enough to save what is really a quite flat, low effort, ‘safe’ production. theres no zeal here, nothing that made me sit up and take notice. it borrows elements of the original ‘Invisible man’ and elements of ‘The Tingler’ in places, but its a film made in 1964/65 that feels like a film made 10 years prior. The original ‘Fly’ movie, for its time felt ahead of the curve and unique. This by contras somehow feels less developed and more regressive than the original.

Same goes for the cine, its all flat lighting, wides and mid shots, no real experimentation with the cine, the angling. Theres minimal B-roll, the whole thing just feels SO dead visually. The way this film is shot makes us as the audience feel like observers to whats going on, rather than thrusting us into the action. everythings kept at arms distance, and when you shoot a whole movie that way, it makes it VERY hard for the audience to really engage in the piece. Not to mention the edit is a bit rough around the edges with some shots running for way longer than they should an some cuts happening too soon or too late.

Performance wise? theres just…nothing really here to get excited about. Both Carol Grey and George Baker as Patricia and Martin are jsut about fine…and thats the BEST performance in this thing…When your BEST is ‘just about fine’ its not looking good…and what we have here is a supporting cast that just, feel so not bothered to be there. Even Burt Kwouk, who I was particularly excited to see in the opening titles, gets a quite minimal role, and doesnt really get much on screen presence beyond running from room to room and the occasional, quiet line delivery. Its a very uninspiring range of performances here with very low energy and almost no enthusiasm or naturalism for the lines being delivered.

I still cant quite get over the fact this films called ‘Curse of the Fly’ and theres no Fly man in it. This is basically just a hokey romance film with a monster movie duct taped to it. its slow, uninteresting, dry at times and absolutely is NOT what I come to a movie like this for. Only watch this one if your a completist and want to see the trilogy…Otherwise give it a wide birth and just stick with the first 2 fly films and the Cronenberg remake. This ones really not worth your time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/curse-of-the-fly/

After the success of ‘The Fly’ it would be less than 12 months before the (pretty much) inevitable sequel hit screens. And, well…mixed bag is probably the best way to frame what you’ll be getting into if you choose to check this one out.

For a starters ‘cinescope’ colour are out and we’re back to black and white for this entry, as we jump forward in time AT LEAST 10-15 years from the first film. And we open with the funeral of Helene who, after 10 years of trying to process the horrific events that led to the death of her husband Andre took her own life. Francois has become something of a mentor for their son Phillipe, and after being hounded by the press over events Phillipe knows very little about. Francois decides now is probably the best time to set the record straight about what killed his parents.

Taking him down to Andres old lab, Phillipe is fascinated by his fathers work and feels compelled to pick up where his dad left off, much to Francois protestation. It doesnt take long for Phillipe to hold back no longer, and on headhunting one of Francois’s top men, Phillipe reopens the lab and begins the experiments once again. Only this time, Francois catches on fairly early as to whats going on and essentially says ‘Well. If I cant stop you from doing this, i’ll at least join in and try to protect you where I can.’

The experiments make great progress and it looks like the team are on the verge of making some significant inroads on the process. But it doesnt take long for things to sour, as Phillipes business partner Ronald, makes a back room dodgey deal with a rival company, promising to steal and sell the details of this transportation device AND get Phillipe out of the picture for a decent sized pay off.

And from there, there are altercations…one thing leads to another and another ‘Fly Man’ is created who goes on the run for a bit…you…you can already see where this is going.

An uninspired sequel to 1958’s ‘The Fly’ but not an uninteresting one. ‘Return of the Fly’ is essentially every Universal monster movie sequel refined to a limber hour and 20.

The script is a bit of a game of two halves. On the one hand, I like that they open the film with a brief recap, and then get stuck right into getting fly people wandering about. The last film drove more on suspense and thrills, where as this is a more traditional monster movie. The problem is, our Fly man…doesnt really do very much…rather; he just sort of bumbles about until he’s recaptured. Living just long enough to kill a couple of people for plot purposes…

the pacings much more spry than the first film, but with that comes uneven tonal moments, the film cant seem to decide how much horror it wants to put in vs how much of a thriller/suspense picture it wants to be. And the result is a film that feels in places a little undercooked, and at times a bit rushed. The Characters dont seem as well developed, with only Francois really being retained from the previous film, and he spends a not insignificant chunk of the runtime in a hospital bed (an easy paycheque for Vincent Price)

The film does end satisfactorally, and the story its trying to tell is fine enough, but this very much feels like a film that rushed into production to try and strike while the iron is hot, and the end result is a film that just doesnt feel as fun or interesting as the first film. It instead feels like a film thats just trying to do more of the first films schtick, but now with a slight twinge of desperation to keep people in their seats.

The direction is also a bit less interesting, the loss of colour for this feature is a major hit to the production, but the special effects budget has also taken a hit, this kind of works in the films favour however, ecause the production cost slump really makes some of the practical effects noticably corny.

Theres less experimentation, less interest in doing interesting things with the lighting or cast placement. A lot of this film is just the cast sat at tables or desks, or stood next to beds…Its a functional work, but I dont think its one that would be standout and reflective of its genre.

Same goes for the cine, the height of experimenation for this feature is some slightly dutch angles…thats the bar. Theres a reliance on stock footage to smooth over a lot of cracks. and while i’ll absolutely say the lab scenes here, for my money look nicer than those from ‘The Fly’ again, that lack of colour removes such a level of dimension from the production, that the whole thing ends up feeling rather drab and clinical…and not intentionally so either.

Add to this that the cast here just…arnt as lively or interesting as the first film, with Brett halsey as Phillipe mustering and enthusiastic physical performance, but not really anything i’d say was notably standout. And. David Frankham as Ronald just about cutting the mustard as our antagonist for the production…It comes to something when Vincent Price is the best part of this movie, and he doesnt really even do much.

All in all? If you just finished ‘The Fly’ and were ‘Buzzed’ for more of the same. This is quite literally that. it doesnt take things to the next level, it isnt trying to do better than the first film. if anything, its a sequel that largely holds position steadily just below the first film quality wise. If ‘The Fly’ is a great creature feature movie of this period of time, ‘Return of the Fly’ is a passably okay way to kill an hour and 20. temper your expectations, and im sure you’ll be fine.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/return-of-the-fly/

‘The Fly’ is kind of like the Sedan or Porsche of the ‘Creature Feature’ genre. A film thats effortlessly smooth in its execution and doesnt pull punches in its plot twists. I had grown up with the Cronenberg remake for years, with only ‘The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror’ giving me any kind of a glimpse as to what the original version had to offer. But! a couple of years ago, I finally picked this one up on google movies, loved it. and when Scream Factory was having a boxset clearence sale a year or so ago, I lept at the chance to nab this on physical media. and im very glad I did!

The film is largely shown via flashback, but we open in the present day as Francois Delambre (Vincent Price) is called urgently in the night to his printing company. A cleaner has spotted an intruder on site using the hydraulic presses, and it appears theres been a murder. Francois rushes to the scene and is utterly beside himself to discover the intruder is non other than his sister in law…and that the body discovered mashed into the press, is non other than his brother Andre.

The police corden off the scene, and his sister in law Helene is taken back home in a state of shock and advised to bedrest. But something is off with her, shes incredibly jittery whenever flies buzz into the room, she’ll leap out of bed and inspect them, scream in terror if the house staff try to kill them, and wont tell anyone any details of what happened leading up to her and her husband being found at the press facility.

Francois tries to get to the bottom of things, but isnt having much luck, until Andres son Phillipe tells him about a strange fly he caught that had a white head. Francois speaks with Helene and eventually convinces her that hes captured this fly, something Helene is relieved for as it’ll help explain everything…after some pursuation, Francois manages to convince her to tell him what happened.

At which point, we flashback for pretty much the rest of the movie. as we see Helene and Andre living a happy life together, Andre is working on an experimental transferrence machine. something that can move an object from one pod to another with near enough 1:1 accuracy…with the only downside being it appears to mirror the object on transfer.

After an accident in which the family pet is transferred, Andre becomes obsessed with the idea that these pods could be for much more than just moving objects from one space to another. This could open up a whole new world in which people could be transported halfway around the planet in an instance. And so he throws himself into his work, desperately trying to figure out the mathematical possibilities of transmitting a person…with terrifying consiquences.

This is one of those movies that I kind of forget about from time to time, but every time I revisit it, I cant quite believe how smoothly it goes down. The script is a little on the slow burn side, and the creature feature element doesnt really become truely prominent until the third act, but its the characters really that help keep this thing floating along. and between Vincent Prices ‘Francois’, Patricia Owens ‘Helene’ and David Hedisons ‘Andre’ we find several likeable, complex characters with nicely interwoven relationships that the film explores with a decent amount of depth.

While the pacing is a little slowburn at times, the act structuring is superb, the transitions between the acts are almost faultless and the ending of this film is probably one of the most bizarre and shocking twists to come out of the ‘creature feature’ age. The dialogue is charming, the tone for the time would have been outright horror, but as this films aged its definitely taken a more campier tinge to it that I feel really helps seal the deal for me.

The direction is razor sharp, with some really decent lighting setups, solid camera work and some beyond decent experimentation with special effects. Do I think this is a distinct work? I cant say that Kurt Neumann made something here that only he could have made. But what I can say is there are definitely distinct moments here, that wouldnt have been some peoples immediate ‘go to’.

The cine is decent too with rich and lavish colour usage throughout, clean crisp sequences that use a good range of shot types and b-roll. and the edit, again while maybe just a bit slower than i’d have personally liked, is still a sturdy work that gives the audience what it came to see. I really liked it on that front.

In a nice change of pace, Price here is playing a good guy as Francois, and I always enjoyed it when he did take on ‘good guy’ roles, as he seemed to play them with a kind of wide eyed innocense and shock that runs a nice contrast to his usual more villainous roles. But credit also has to go to Patritia Owens as Helene, who manages the, not at ALL easy task, of playing a character that is percieved to be crazy, but is actually telling the truth. Its common in a lot of fiction for that type of character to exist. But they’re usually being played as clearly insane anyway, they just so HAPPEN to be telling the truth. Owens here comes across as earnest, but anxious. Like she knows people will think shes mad, but that she knows whats ACTUALLY happened. It gives her performance a rounded quality that you dont often see, letalone in this era of monster movies.

The rest of the cast dont dissapoint either, with Herbert Marshall as Inspector Charas briging a stoney solumness to the film, as someone whos seen murderers lie before, and cant quite take what he’s seen here. along side the other cast members who bring a decent physicality to the role.

I really do have a soft spot for ‘The Fly’ I dont know how seriously audiences took it back in the day, but to modern viewers, this is a campy horror film with some goofy effects, and genuinely shocking plot twists that stay in your mind LONG after the credits have rolled. Definitely a good introduction picture for someone looking to get into ‘Creature Feature’ cinema. Its charming, accessable, very well made for the time and I had a blast checking it out.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-fly/1/

The third feature on Criterions Tod Browning sideshow triptic, I feel a bit unfortunate towards the mystic, im assuming its a fault on my part. But I just couldnt quite get my head around some of the plot of this film.

The basic premise is that a family group of ‘Travellers’ in Hungary, regularly perform a stage show, the central act of which involves the families only Daughter taking on the stage persona of ‘The Mystic Zara’. pulling off seemingly inexplainable acts of fortune telling and seances. The troup notice however that a man in a suit has been on the fringes of recent performances watching very closely. And after one appearence too many. The troup plan to jump the guy to find out why he’s stalking them.

It turns out that he’s Michael Nash, a VERY wealthy businessman whos taken strong interest in Zaras abilities and wants to showcase them to the aristocricy of New York…The troup readily agree, but the problem is…Zaras a fake, in fact the entire act is an elaborate staging of fake panels, peppers ghosts and wire work. But the gang make it work in a New York ballroom and quickly become the talk of the town.

Little do the gang realise, the Michael is in fact the carer to a young orphaned heiress Doris Merrik, and he plans to use the seances as a means of terrifying Doris into handing her fortune over to Michael…aannd thats kind of where I got a bit lost here honestly, a chap named Jimmie turns up at some point and I think he tries to convince Zara that the pair of them should try and convince Doris to hand her wealth over to them…But I think I must have missed some key plot points because the final act moves SO fast that i pretty much ended up confused right up till the final 10 minutes when it all slotted back into place and a resolution came about which was blunt, and kind of limp.

Its a shame really, because I really liked the opening act of this film, but something goes amiss partway into the second act and I just couldnt find my thread on it right up until the end.

What I can say is that while the pacing and plotting goes a bit arwy in the middle, the opening and closing acts are fairly solid, even if the ending is a bit underwhelming. The cast, given their obscurity are fantatic physical performers.

I really appreciated that this film was partially audioscaped, giving us almost no dialogue (barring a singing sequence) but giving us all the atmospheric tracks and any diagetic noises within the scene. Which I think was a very nice touch. and visually, I think I preferred this over the other Browning feature on this set ‘The Unknown’. its crisp, the visual effects and lighting are genuinely eerie in places and etherial. the thing feels wonderfully spooky in places and the direction is more than up to Brownings usual efforts.

I think the fact this film lay forgotten for so many years is quite bizarre given how technically interesting it is at times. While the plot is a bit of a muddle, the performances are largely very good and the whole film gets a BIG boost with its newly written score composed in 2023 by Dean Hurley.

One i’ll probably have to rewatch to firm up my feelings on it, Now I know the tone its going for, I think i’ll be able to give it the best chance on a rewatch. But as far as ‘Silent Era’ cinema goes? I thought this was pretty decent.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-mystic/

A late night silent feature before bed, and a latter day offering from Tod Browning, ‘The Unknown’ is the film he made just before ‘London After Midnight’ and while the plot itself is maybe a bit simplistic, its a pretty engaging watch all things considered.

The plot is set in Madrid as we open following a travelling circus and we’re introduced to Alonzo and Nanon. Alonzo has no arms, and his performance in the circus involves shooting at Nanon on a rotating platform using only his feet to hold and fire the pistol.

Nanon herself is traumatised by men caressing and touching her, to the point that ANY man laying hands on her instantly makes her recoil in fear and horror. As such, she befriends Alonzo telling him that he is the kind of man she’d ultimately like to marry. However, Nanon is also attracting the attention of the circus strong man Malabar, who is friends with Alonzo, but doesnt really know how to approach Nanon, as he is also aware of her fears. Alonzo spends lots of time with Nanon and begins developing strong feelings for her too.

The plot twist? Alonzo is actually a criminal on the run, who is using a corset to hide the fact that he actually DOES have arms, but to reveal that would not only scare off Nanon, but permanently label him a liar, not to mention outing him as a murderous thug.

At first he considers all the workarounds he could do to ensure Nanon never finds out about him being fully armed. Before settling on the logical solution, he pulls Nanon out of the circus with himself after a particulary violent altercation with the ringmaster. before dissapearing to threaten a doctor into surgically removing his arms, so that he can be with her. The OTHER big plot twist? while he’s off doing that Malabar realises the pair have left the circus and finds Nanon and decides to keep her company while Alonzo is missing, and over time the pair grow close, and eventually agree to marry each other when Alonzo returns (womp womp).

I have to be mindful when reviewing silent era cinema that it really was a different time and that a lot of the techniques that make the cinematic experience so enjoyable today, were very much still in their infancy at this time. Because the core plot and concept of this film is very much enjoyable, especially for the silent era. But its a journey and a half to get to the good stuff here.

For a starters, this is the era where, due to the lack of sound, everything has to be spelled out to the audience…LITERALLY, via caption cards. which makes simple conversations take an age. And because, at this point, the audience wernt trusted to put the dots together within a visual medium (this film came out the same year as ‘Metropolis’) everything has to be explained in painful detail, overexplained to the point that, as someone with chronic concentration problems, I could happily sit on my phone while this played out and dip in in 5 minute chunks and literally not miss a beat of the plot.

The plot as it stands is a wonderfully dark romance with horror elements at play which tonally, I found very satisfying. I like how it shows the slow breakdown of Alonzo and thought the other characters were all really solidly written and developed for this era of cinema. However, the pacing is glacial at times, and while the plot is fairly straightforward, you WILL be dragged into recaps of the plot pretty regularly across the runtime. which is a real shame. I could see this being an amazing modernized adaptation, maybe as an hour long TV special or something similar, it has a very ‘high level’ tone to it that I liked, and I think would still have an appeal to a modern audience if it were to be modernised and adapted.

The direction and cine is very pretty, for the time it must have been kind of spectacular…well, until ‘Metropolis’ redefined cinema as a medium…BUT! for a brief window it must have been quite spectacular! with some really solid sequence building and some decent set pieces and location work.

Its really the performances here that shine the brightest with Lon Chaney really stealing the show as Alonzo, doing frankly masterful work with purely physical movements alone. I defy anyone to watch his performance in the 3rd act of this production and not be absolutely captivated by just how raw and powerful his emotions are on screen. Its superb honestly. Thats not to snub an early appearence from Joan Crawford as Nanon who equally works a great range here, delivering powerful responses as she is subjected to increasingly traumatic experiences.

All in all? I dont think this one will have the power to pull in audiences in the same way that more widely regarded silent era pictures would. But theres a lot to like in this 68 minute feature. Its a decent B-picture for Brownings masterwork ‘Freaks’ and I think the pair would double feature well if your audience is open enough to silent era cinema.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-unknown/

Im going to be honest here, I have NO idea what this film was actually about, and didnt much care for it. I had more fun riffing it with friends than experiencing a film ‘too horrifying’ to feature footage from it in its trailer.

It was all over the place, messy, and ended unsatisfactorally.

Traumatika? More like ‘Narkoleptika’ Hard pass.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/traumatika/

Watched on Tuesday August 19, 2025.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-we-wish-you-a-turtle-christmas/4/