[This seems to be the day for "bug" reviews! -Moderator]
THE FLY II
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Bleak sequel to David Cronenberg's
bleak remake of THE FLY. A few good ideas mixed in with a
lot of absurdity. Aimed very much at a teenage market.
Rating: -1.
In 1958 Twentieth Century Fox released THE FLY, based on the story of the same name that had appeared the year before in PLAYBOY. As they would later do with STAR WARS, they assumed that THE FLY would be a quick summer film for the kids and would soon be forgotten. Instead it was their top moneymaker of the year. Later they made the first of two sequels, RETURN OF THE FLY, about the son of the tragic hero of the first film also being transformed. Three years ago Mel Brooks' Brooksfilm production company and Fox made a non-remake remake of THE FLY, directed by David Cronenberg. It was successful so with the inevitability of history repeating itself, Brooksfilm and Fox have made a sequel about a son following in all six of his father's footsteps. Since RETURN OF THE FLY was already used and PUPA OF THE FLY is hard to say, they have called it THE FLY II.
Technically this is not a teenage sequel since Martin Brundle (played by Eric Stoltz wearing more makeup than he did in MASK) grows up very quickly and only looks, sounds, and acts like a teenager. He is really only five years old, but a *very mature* five years old. In fact, he is not only mature enough to have a sophisticated adult relationship, including sex, with a woman who cannot tell she is making love to a five-year-old (Beth Logan, played by Daphne Zuniga), little Brundle has also become a computer hacker and genetic scientist par excellence. This prodigious brilliance is apparently the result of a skillful blending of the genes of a brilliant scientist, a science magazine writer, and a horsefly. He also seems to have inherited a love of dogs from his insect parentage. (Dogs are very nice to flies and often make them dinner.) Now suddenly, after five years of at least looking normal, Martin is being taken over by the fly genes he inherited. Of course, his genes seem to be all he was allowed to inherit as he is unknowingly kept prisoner by Bartok Industries, which in Martin's father's day seemed to have a very nice "hands off" policy on their workers' efforts, but which in the intervening five years has become Cruelty, Incorporated, performing vicious experiments on animals and ignoring the human rights of their employees. Yes, we have a genuine teenage sequel with sensitive, smart teens (one of whom is only five years old) and nasty, stupid, vicious adults.
Like THE FLY I, THE FLY II is a somber dark film, literally and figuratively. Like THE FLY I, it has one or two ideas mixed in with liberal doses of balderdash. You can also see more of anything that went over big in the first film. There are lots of gore effects. Little Fly seems to have his father's habit of shattering his way straight through panes of glass. And in the grand tradition of sequels, the main continuing character was one of the least interesting characters in the original. In this case it is Stethis, the publisher, played by John Getz. Admittedly we do get flashes of Martin's two human parents. (The actor who played the fly parent tragically died before the sequel was made, if I know my entomology.) A Gina-Davis-non-lookalike we see scream on an operating table and die. We do actually see a tape of Jeff Goldblum as Seth Brundle, claiming he designed the transporter/reconstructor to be "creative" in the way it rebuilds things. "Creative." That was the word he used. Right! Oh, and there is an in-joke. One of the characters is reading THE SHAPE OF RAGE, a study of the films of David Cronenberg, the director of THE FLY I.
This is one of those films you can tell is in trouble just by reading the credits. Four people worked on the script--always a bad sign, and even worse since two have the same last name. Then there is the fact that the special effects were created and designed by Chris Walas, Inc. Why does that sound bad? Because the film was directed by Chris Walas, that's why.
The science of THE FLY II could have been interesting, combining aspects of modern genetics and computer science. The plot involves both gene splicing and the first reference I have seen on the screen to computer worms. But the science is bad and uses dramatic license rather than any knowledge of the field. The science is tailored to the plot and the special effects rather than the reverse. The creature that Martin mutates into has little to do with a human or a fly. And then the idea that the fly genes would save all their disfiguring effects until Martin is grown up seems absurd, and the idea that the fly DNA and the human DNA would combine for a viable (living) creature is a little hard to believe.
All told, this is a disappointing sequel to Cronenberg's THE FLY. Rate it a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzz!leeper
leeper@mtgzz.att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews