This is an example of a decent movie that is nearly impossible to enjoy. Paradoxically the special effects are much, much too good at what they do, sucking the entertainment value out of the experience.
Actually, labeling this a decent movie is probably being generous. Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum (until he's buried beneath pounds of make-up) give performances that are both credible and interesting, and I've always liked Howard Shore's operatic score, but those are the highlights. The pseudo-metaphorical science is ludicrous, and far too much time and effort is spent trying to convince the audience that it's not. I respect that there was some restraint shown on Cronenberg's part as far as that goes, but when gene splicing science is the premise of your movie, there's got to be something credible in the explanation of what goes on.
Where there is not the same restraint is in the panoply of special effects detailing Brundle's transformation from man to Brundlefly. Is there a reason for those meticulously crafted (and justifiably famous/infamous) scenes where we learn how Brundlefly eats, or what body parts have become obsolete and have fallen off, other than just to shock and titillate? It strikes me that a more streamlined and less repugnant alternative would have been a Phantom of the Opera-esquire reveal of Brundlefly closer to the end of both his transformation and the storyline, with a building sense of foreboding, a la the original '50s Fly.
This is not the same kind of bad film that "The Fly II" is - this film does most, if not all, things better than its sequel. What sinks this picture (and leaves #2 untouched) is the ambition with which it was made. "The Fly" falls too far short of its own expectations.
Actually, labeling this a decent movie is probably being generous. Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum (until he's buried beneath pounds of make-up) give performances that are both credible and interesting, and I've always liked Howard Shore's operatic score, but those are the highlights. The pseudo-metaphorical science is ludicrous, and far too much time and effort is spent trying to convince the audience that it's not. I respect that there was some restraint shown on Cronenberg's part as far as that goes, but when gene splicing science is the premise of your movie, there's got to be something credible in the explanation of what goes on.
Where there is not the same restraint is in the panoply of special effects detailing Brundle's transformation from man to Brundlefly. Is there a reason for those meticulously crafted (and justifiably famous/infamous) scenes where we learn how Brundlefly eats, or what body parts have become obsolete and have fallen off, other than just to shock and titillate? It strikes me that a more streamlined and less repugnant alternative would have been a Phantom of the Opera-esquire reveal of Brundlefly closer to the end of both his transformation and the storyline, with a building sense of foreboding, a la the original '50s Fly.
This is not the same kind of bad film that "The Fly II" is - this film does most, if not all, things better than its sequel. What sinks this picture (and leaves #2 untouched) is the ambition with which it was made. "The Fly" falls too far short of its own expectations.