This month in Horror movie history, back in 1989, The Fly II emerged as a sequel to a 1986 David Cronenberg acclaimed remake of a 1958 film.
Looking back at this, The Fly in 1986 was a straight-cut addition to the Horror genre that turned many heads on its release date. Released in theaters on February 10, 1989, The Fly II could easily be touted as the film that killed the genre of creature features, but that would be too polarizing for a film that received large box office earnings despite its spot as the fifth film in a strange series of Fly related films released by 20th Century Fox. No one was really asking for another of these movies, and because of that, no one was too mad when the film turned out to be an overindulgent mess. Some people even liked the way it spilled out.
In terms of plotline, this movie shares a continued storyline from its predecessor, but that is about it. Eric Stoltz (Mask 1985, Some Kind of Wonderful 1987) and Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing 1985, Spaceballs 1987) are the new main characters; Stoltz plays the now adult son of Geena Davis’s character Veronica Quaife from the first film. If you are looking for any other form of continuation, turn the film off now. Only one actor, John Getz, fully reprises a role the film, even Davis’s character is replaced by a new actress despite her importance in continuity at the beginning of the film. While Jeff Goldblum does return for some screen time, it is all footage from the first movie that has been reused.
The main factor behind all these changes likely rests with the new director of the film. The first movie was directed by the acclaimed David Cronenberg (Scanners 1981, Videodrone 1983), but the second movie was directed by Special Effects Artist Chris Walas (who had won awards for special effects on films like 1985’s Gremlins, and yes, 1986’s The Fly). The Fly II, with a screenplay co-written by Mick Garris, is Walas’s only movie with any acclaim that has him receiving directing credits, but he has worked on many films as a special effects artist, which is why the gore is so potent and engrossing. The last twenty minutes of this film are truly nothing more than a special effects expo. While the design of the gore in the ending is done very well, it feels like the main purpose of the film is only within this timeframe. The ending becomes the entire point of a movie that feels slow and confusing in comparison.
Although The Fly II maintains the same plot progression and scientific themes, the screenwriting feels flawed in places. It focuses on the monstrosity of the creature over the character progression that made the remake feel human and intriguing. The story is not as smart as the first and progresses one sequence directly after the next with acting that becomes cheesy at times. This goes against the original Vincent Price movie, which is told almost entirely in a flashback sequence. That method forces the readers to search for motive and humanity in what seems like an insane crime. For this movie, the straightforward writing and directing give less autonomy to the viewer to make decisions about what is happening. This takes away some of the mystery and suspense of the film and really pushes it towards the thriller and gore horror genre that it is referred to as in today’s lens.
What is potent about The Fly II is its Horror-based cinematography and effects. The 1986 remake won an Academy Award for Best Makeup, with Walas and another artist, Dupuis, the minds behind the makeup of the first film. This is how Walas got his role directing the second film, and because of that, there are plenty of disgusting and terrifying shots. Not to mention a heart-wrenching scene of dog mutilation to really get the adrenaline pumping. The color grading and filtering were quite successful in bringing out the important parts of the set and the Horror design as well.
Any Horror fan has seen their fair share of gory films that lose their plot in exchange for eye-gouging visuals. This seems almost like a specific genre of film, but it is more of a pool of films that could not capture a viewer’s attention with anything else except for their special effects.
For that reason, it is a shame that The Fly II did not have better acting or plot because its attention to detail in its physical horror deserves to be noticed. This is especially the case now in an era of moviemaking where big budgets are centered on computer-generated graphics rather than practical effects. Nonetheless, The Fly II has some spectacular eye candy that frightens and leaves a strong mental image for the viewer.
){kind=link}
No comment