Velma: This Halloween Needs to be More Special! (2024) – Review

With the amount of backlash from both critics and fans alike, there was very little chance that Velma was going to get a third season – the fact that it had a second season had more to do with the economics of creating an animated show rather than the quality of season one – but those that hoped this “special” would wrap up season two’s cliffhanger without doing any more damage to these beloved characters, were disappointed on both counts.

Oh, Velma, what have they done to you now? This Halloween Needs to be More Special! takes the already polarizing 2023 Velma reboot and dials it up to a level that’s… well, not special. If you thought the series was divisive, this Halloween special may leave you longing for simpler times when Velma solved mysteries with her gang instead of making you wonder why you spent 37 minutes of your life watching this train wreck. The special leans heavily into the same brand of “edgy” humour that defined the series, but it misses the mark time and time again. This special is so hollow and lacklustre that the Great Pumpkin himself would likely skip town rather than endure it. And one must ask “Does this terrible entry put the entire future of the franchise in question?”

 

“Do you think we’ll survive on TikTok or something?”

For those who don’t remember, or have been trying to forget, season two of Velma ended with Scrappy-Doo fatally wounding Velma (Mindy Kaling) but then ended up dying after Velma’s ghost possessed his body, and while Dr. Purdue was unable to restore Velma’s body, Amber revealed that they can revive her with magic, albeit only on Halloween night after finding a spell that works. This Halloween special begins with a failed attempt at putting Velma’s soul back in her body, none of Amber’s (Sara Rameriz) spells are strong enough, but Thorn (Jennifer Hale) reveals that she handed a more powerful magic book to the Historical Society, so with only nineteen hours left before Halloween ends our gang of “heroes” must act and act quickly.

 

“Guys, if we solve this fast enough maybe we’ll get a third season?”

Unfortunately, there is a wrinkle in their plan in the form of a corpse at the Historical Society. A staffer has recently fallen down the stairs to her death and it is suggested that this is due to the ghost of the Black Knight. Evelyn (Kari Wahlgren), an employee of the Historical Society, informs them that many years a scorned, dorky student dressed up as a Black Knight was run out of the first Sexy Halloween and pushed off a cliff, he returns to haunt it every year and claims a life, and by that, I mean a party goer is found dead via falling. When the ghostly whispering of the Black Knight sends Velma fleeing it becomes apparent that we have a real mystery on our hands.

 

How can Velma and her friends defeat this fearsome foe?

Of course, that’s not the only issue facing our group and despite this special’s short running time, we have a lot of plot threads. Daphne (Constance Wu) seems more focused on attending the Sexy Halloween party than resurrecting her girlfriend, Norville (Sam Richardson) is happy about being dragged to the Sexy Halloween party by his girlfriend due to the whole “murderous ghost” problem, and the parents of Crystal Cove continue to try and convince their kids to attend the Non-Sexy Halloween party at the school gym, and Fred finds out that his family is now broke.

 

“Sorry son, I invested our entire family fortune into this series.”

Sadly, the whole mystery concerning the Black Knight is put on the back burner for a while – who’d want a good mystery in a Scooby-Doo show that lacks Scooby-Doo – instead, it focuses on the gang trying to get Velma back in her body. With the fear that the “Witch Guide to Dark Magic” could corrupt anyone who reads it, Fred (Glenn Howerton) acquires an audiobook version, and from it, they learn that the only way to bring Velma back from the dead is to confront what they fear most. This results in an insufferable amount of time spent following the gang running around trying to find out which particular fear they need to confront and it’s about as interesting as it sounds.

 

My greatest fear is this show getting a third season.

But who is behind the many murders surrounding the Sexy Halloween party? Is it the ghost of Geoff (Nicholas Braun) the dorky kid in the Black Knight costume who was pushed off a cliff all those many years ago? Or is it one of the Crystal Cove parents who have their own agenda in preventing sexy parties at Halloween? Or is a bunch of lazy screenwriters coming up with a contrived twist that makes the original Scooby-Doo mysteries look like Agatha Christie by comparison? Well, it turns out that dear old Evelyn of the Historical Society created the myth of the Black Knight to keep everyone afraid, fear being required for her dark magic to work, and she’s been murdering people ever since in hopes of creating an atmosphere of dread and fear. With the book of Dark Magic in her hands she unleashes a zombie horde, and I just wish this was as exciting as it sounds.

 

“Klaatu barada nikto!”

Stray Observations:

• Rapper Saweetie shows up to perform at the Sexy Halloween party turning this portion of the Halloween special into an episode of Scooby-Doo and Guess Who?
• The character of The Black Knight is a nod to the very first episode of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! called “What a Night for a Knight?”
• The local costume store stocks several costumes that reference other classic Scooby-Doo cartoons, such as the Space Kook, the Big Bad Werewolf and the Ghost Clown.

 

If you can’t be good at least reference something good, right?

The title promises something special, but what we get instead is a half-baked mystery mixed in with more moronic shenanigans by this gang of idiots. This special continues to depict Velma as a whiny, insecure wreck who spends more time worrying about her social media presence than catching ghosts, or in this case, having herself un-ghosted. The jokes aimed at poking fun at Halloween tropes often fall flat, either because they’re too on-the-nose or because they’re buried under layers of self-referential humour that don’t quite land. The special’s attempts at being “too cool” for Halloween, while simultaneously celebrating it, create a confusing dichotomy.

 

“Keep looking, we’re bound to find a plot here somewhere.”

Animation-wise, it’s a mixed bag. As with the previous two seasons, it’s a colourful and occasionally vibrant setting, but it feels like the visuals are trying to compensate for how utterly lifeless the story is. The attempts at humour fall flatter than a Scooby snack that’s been left out for a week. Instead of clever gags, we’re bombarded with tired meta-commentary about how outdated Velma’s character is—newsflash: we know, you don’t need to remind us every five minutes! Worse is the fact that this doesn’t even wrap up the series, instead, we get another cliffhanger indicating that the Book of Evil has corrupted Fred and thus a new threat hangs over Crystal Cove.

 

Thankfully, the threat of a third season is very small.

In the end, Velma: This Halloween Needs to be More Special! is a trick, not a treat. If you’re looking for a Halloween special to get you into the spooky spirit, this isn’t it. Watch literally anything else—It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown, A Nightmare Before Christmas, Hocus Pocus, or even that knock-off haunted house show your neighbour made. Trust me, it’ll be a better time and you’ll have more fun. If this special was meant to breathe new life into the Velma franchise, it failed miserably, and it even dropped the ball on wrapping up the pesky cliffhanger from season two which is pretty unforgivable. Overall, this Halloween special left me wishing I was watching the real Scooby-Doo gang hunt for actual monsters instead of enduring another soulless Halloween-themed pity party.

The Man from Planet X (1951) – Review

Alien visitors were the meat and potatoes of science fiction cinema throughout the 40s and 50s, but they were rarely of the peace-loving variety. They often spearheaded a massive alien invasion and blew up national monuments. Still, in 1951 United Artists released an entry in which the herald of such an invasion was a little less impressive than its contemporaries.

Set against the eerie backdrop of a remote Scottish island, The Man from Planet X deals with American journalist John Lawrence (Robert Clarke) arriving on the isolated island of Muir to cover the work of Professor Elliot (Raymond Bond). It seems that the professor is observing a mysterious celestial body one that he believes is heading towards Earth. Lawrence quickly realizes that this is no ordinary celestial event but the arrival of an extraterrestrial visitor from the distant Planet X. Along for the ride is the professor’s daughter, Enid (Margaret Field), who is ostensibly the film’s love interest/damsel in distress. It is Enid who has the first “close encounter” with the film’s titular character, wandering across the moors and up to the strange spacecraft in what could best be described as a very lackadaisical attitude, but when she sees the occupant her reaction is typical of her gender in 1950s movies, she screams and high-tails it to find the menfolk.

 

To be fair, I’d not have even gotten this close.

As Lawrence investigates her claim, he discovers a small, eerie spaceship and he to encounters the alien – a humanoid with a large, bulbous head – the plot thickens as it becomes evident that the alien, devoid of malicious intent, is merely seeking assistance and he is even rescued by our heroes when his suit malfunctions and the creature almost asphyxiates. However, Professor Elliot’s opportunistic assistant Dr. Mears (William Schallert) sees the alien as a chance to become rich and powerful – a piece of alien tech they discover is made out of metal that is ten times stronger and lighter than what we have here on Earth have – so he tries to torture the metal formula from the alien, with expected results.

 

And this is when talks broke down.

Which brings us to the key question regarding the plot of this movie. Is the alien nothing more than a stranded traveller who is misused by an opportunistic villain? That seems to be part of the plot of this movie, but this visitor also has a hypno-ray that can mind-control people and which he utilizes to enslave the inhabitants of the nearby town.  We later learn from a mind-controlled Mears that the spaceman intends to use its ship as a wireless relay station in advance of an invasion coming from the approaching planet, which is a dying world, and this kind of takes the whole “innocent traveller” idea and chucks it into the dustbin.

 

“Klaatu barada nikto.”

Stray Observations:

• Professor Elliot informs reporter John Lawrence of an approaching planet and states “This isolated island is that part of the world that this new planet will come closest to.” Which is a bit ridiculous when you consider the size of interplanetary bodies.
• This was a great year for planets colliding as 1951 also saw the release of George Pal’s science fiction epic When Worlds Collide.
• To save money, director Edgar G. Ulmer was able to use sets from the 1948 big-budget epic Joan of Arc, which is a weird genre mix, to say the least.
• This movie inspired Steven Spielberg’s use of musical communication between humans and aliens that he utilized in his sci-fi classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
• Mind-controlled townsfolk forced to dig free an alien was a plot later used in the 1978 Marvel novel “Incredible Hulk: Stalker from the Stars.”
• The Man from Planet X makes a cameo appearance in the 2003 hybrid film Looney Tunes Back in Action. In that film, he is one of the many aliens captured and contained within Area 52.
• I can’t say I wasn’t a little disappointed that the “Man from Planet X” didn’t turn out to be either Marvin the Martian or Duck Dodgers.

 “And now this planet is hereby claimed for the Earth in the name of DUCK DODGERS IN THE 24 1/2TH CENTURY!”

Edgar G. Ulmer’s The Man from Planet X certainly deserves recognition for its ambitious attempt to explore extraterrestrial themes in the early days of science fiction cinema, however, a critical examination reveals that despite its intriguing premise, the film falls short in several key areas. One of the most glaring issues is the film’s low-budget production values which resulted in most of the film’s running time consisting of people wandering around the fog-shrouded moors and the titular extraterrestrial being portrayed by a dude in a cheap and unconvincing costume.  The filmmaker’s attempts at creating a sense of intergalactic wonder are also hampered by visibly artificial set designs and clumsy visual effects.

 

This film does provide a quaint-looking spacecraft.

The narrative, while conceptually interesting, lacks the depth and complexity necessary to elevate it beyond a run-of-the-mill B-movie, nor does the film’s 71-minute running time allow any proper exploration of themes that are hinted at. The characters, particularly the protagonist John Lawrence, are one-dimensional and fail to evoke a genuine emotional connection from the audience and the dialogue feels stilted and lacks the sharpness that could have elevated the film’s script to a more sophisticated level. The pacing is another significant drawback as the plot struggles to maintain a consistent rhythm, with moments of suspense diluted by unnecessarily prolonged scenes – such as the aforementioned wandering around in the fog – and uneven transitions also result in a disjointed viewing experience that hinders the film’s ability to build and sustain tension effectively. Furthermore, the film’s setting on a remote Scottish island, while initially promising, ultimately feels underutilized. The potential for atmospheric and claustrophobic environments is not fully realized and the film misses the opportunity to create a more immersive and haunting atmosphere.

 

“This place is so foggy I’ve lost the plot of the movie?”

In summary, while The Man from Planet X is credited for its pioneering efforts in the early days of science fiction cinema, a critical evaluation reveals its shortcomings, its technical limitations, underdeveloped characters, as well as pacing issues, prevent it from achieving the status of a timeless classic. But despite these flaws, it remains an interesting artifact of its time, showcasing both the challenges and aspirations of filmmakers attempting to navigate the uncharted territories of outer space on a modest budget.

The Fly II (1989) – Review

In 1986 David Cronenberg helmed one of the all-time great horror remakes, unfortunately for us, Cronenberg wasn’t interested in tackling a sequel, so instead of us getting another intelligent adult horror film the people over at Fox gave us a generic teenage monster movie that had none of the thematic elements of the original.

The film picks up where the first left off, focusing on the unfortunate offspring of Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) and Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) – with the character of Veronica now being played by a look-a-like actress – and the movie opens with Veronica (Saffron Henderson) giving birth while her ex-boyfriend/ex-boss Stathis Borans (John Getz) looks on in horror. The procedure doesn’t go all that well and poor Veronica dies while giving to what looks to be some sort of insect larvae – this turns out to be just a larval sac with a normal-looking baby boy inside – but I’m still curious as to why she went ahead with the carrying the baby to term, she seemed really set on an abortion in the last film. While the baby appears normal at first sight – after being peeled out of its larval sac – it is soon discovered that he is growing at highly accelerated has incredible reflexes, does not need sleep and possesses a genius-level intellect.

 

Danger! Child Genius at Work.

At the age of five but looking twenty-eight, Martin Brundle (Eric Stoltz), begins to learn of the genetic anomalies that plagued his father, setting the stage for a tragic narrative arc, which is the heart of the film’s conflict as this is all taking place at Bartok Industries, the company that funded his father’s experiments, and while CEO Anton Bartok (Lee Richardson) wants Martin to think of him as a father figure it’s clear to us that he’s just your typical evil corporate villain, one that we’ve seen in dozens of films like this.  How evil? They use a beautiful dog for an early teleportation experiment, that they didn’t know young Martin had bonded with, and it is horribly deformed by the process.  At least this does set the stage for Bartok’s ultimate demise. Unfortunately, Bartok isn’t the only villain of the piece as we also have the head of security Scorby (Garry Chalk) whose sole job seems to be acting like a complete asshole when not being creepy as fuck. Then there are Bartok’s top scientists, Dr. Jainway (Ann Marie Lee) and Dr. Shepard (Frank C. Turner), who clearly never signed off on the Hippocratic Oath. Between the doctors’ callous and uncaring behaviour and Bartok’s cruel manipulated actions, this film has its bases covered when it comes to villainy.

 

“Do we look cartoonishly evil enough?”

The original film had a tragic love story so the studio, of course, mandated that the sequel must have a love story as well, which leads to the introduction of Beth Logan (Daphne Zuniga), an employee of Bartok Industries whom Martin bumps into while doing one of his nightly sojourns – he doesn’t sleep and while Bartok Industries may have an evil head of security it doesn’t mean he’s good at this job so Martin seems to have free reign of the place – and after a meet-cute the couple they quickly become friends. Now, there is a rocky moment in their relationship when Martin discovers that his beloved dog, who he was told by Bartok was humanely out down but is still alive and suffering. This is nothing but false conflict as it is almost immediately resolved and feels like nothing more than screen padding as it doesn’t bring anything to either character development or the plot, well, other than setting up that moral comeuppance of Bartok.

 

This ending is brought to you by screenwriter Frank Darabont.

It’s this kind of lazy writing that hamstrings the plot, while it attempts to explore themes of genetic mutation and scientific ethics, it often feels forced and convoluted and relies on clichéd tropes of corporate greed and unethical experimentation, failing to offer a fresh take on these familiar elements. Moreover, the pacing is uneven, with long stretches of the film feeling slow and meandering, punctuated by moments of graphic violence and horror. One of the film’s primary issues is its lack of subtlety. It doesn’t capture the same sense of dread and psychological tension that made the original so compelling. Instead, it opts for more in-your-face horror, which can feel overbearing and less effective in generating genuine fear or unease.

 

There will be no subtlety in this offering.

Stray Observations:

• Geena Davis declined to be in the sequel due to her distaste of the “maggot birth scene” so she was replaced by actress Saffron Henderson, despite being 10 years younger than Davis. Did having sex with “Brundlefly” cause her aging to alter as well?
• This film continues the tradition of having the lab accessed by a large sliding metal door, which is nice. On the other hand, Bartok Industries having the worst security measures ever is another thing altogether.
• Why would you test the telepods on a dog if it was still turning apples into applesauce? I had a similar issue with the 1986 film where Seth Brundle tested the device on a baboon rather than a lab rat or a guinea pig.
• Despite the accelerated growth and increased intelligence, Martin was still only 5 years old, so his having a sexual relationship with a much older woman is all kinds of wrong.
• When Bartok gives Martin a nice apartment, he is told “No more prying eyes” but when his tryst with Beth is discovered the security guard hands her a sex tape of her and Martin, which makes no sense if you are trying to keep Martin on board with all your mad science.
• When Beth tries to contact Martin the Bartok Industries operator tells her “I’m sorry, there is no Martin Brundle working here, please try again later.” But how would calling later make an employee who “doesn’t exist” suddenly be there?
• When Martin “hatches” from his cocoon, Bartok orders his security teams to capture him alive and unharmed, but we then immediately see the guards loading up with machine guns. Do they not understand what “live/capture” means?

 

To be fair, I’d want a bazooka if I was facing this thing.

While this sequel has its moments of creativity and gore, it ultimately failed to capture the same level of acclaim as its predecessor. The Fly II falters in its pacing and storytelling, unlike its predecessor, the sequel lacks emotional depth and philosophical musings about the human condition. The characters are underdeveloped, and the plot relies heavily on convenient plot twists. Additionally, the screenplay fails to establish the same level of tension and dread that made Croneberg’s film so impactful. This sequel is also marred by a lacklustre supporting cast, including Daphne Zuniga as Martin’s love interest, who doesn’t have much to work with in terms of character development or personality. John Getz reprises his role as Stathis Borans but his presence feels more like a nostalgic nod to the previous film rather than a vital contribution to this particular story. On the plus side, Eric Stoltz does deliver a commendable performance as Martin Brundle, evoking a nice mix of sympathy and horror as he deals with the curse of his genetics.

 

“If only I could go Back to the Future.”

Despite the shortcomings, The Fly II does deliver some visceral thrills and a few memorable moments of horror, the practical effects work is a testament to the craftsmanship of the team assembled for this sequel, and the film does maintain a gritty, dark atmosphere throughout its running time and the climax, while predictable, offers a satisfying resolution to Martin’s harrowing journey. Of course, where the film truly excels is its practical effects, which are a hallmark of the horror genre. The grotesque transformations Martin undergoes are both impressive and stomach-churning. Then there is the creature design, a hallmark of Cronenberg’s film, which continues to impress and the metamorphosis scenes are gruesome and visually striking, showcasing the talents of the special effects team led by Chris Walas himself.

 

Science has never looked so icky.

In conclusion, The Fly II is a serviceable sequel that manages to deliver some memorable moments of well-used practical effects and it maintains a degree of entertainment value for fans of body horror. However, it falls short of capturing the essence and intelligence of the previous film. But if you’re a fan of gruesome transformations and practical effects, it’s worth a watch. Still, don’t expect this sequel to match the psychological depth and impact of David Cronenberg’s masterpiece.

The Fly (1986) – Review

When you think of the term “Body Horror” one filmmaker leaps readily to mind, David Cronenberg.  While he’d been dabbling in that arena since his directorial debut with Shivers, which came out way back in 1975, it was in 1986 that he helmed his crowning achievement in this field of horror with his remake of the 1958 classic The Fly.

With a script by Cronenberg himself, this remake explores themes of transformation, identity and the consequences of unchecked scientific ambition. The story follows the trials and tribulations of Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), a brilliant but introverted scientist who develops a teleportation device, as one does when you have no friends but have a cool lab, unfortunately, during an ill-fated experiment a housefly becomes entangled in the teleporter with him, resulting in a fusion of their DNA at the molecular genetic level. Along for the ride is journalist Veronica “Ronnie” Quaife (Geena Davis), whom Seth had met during a meet-the-press event  – she was sent there by her editor and ex-boyfriend Stathis Bornas (John Getz) whose creepy ex-boyfriend behaviour will kick off the horror – and while Brundle initially experiences an exhilarating surge in physical and mental abilities after the teleportation he soon begins to undergo a horrifying and irreversible metamorphosis into a grotesque human-fly hybrid.

 

Seth does not become a poster boy for good science.

As Brundle’s body deteriorates he grapples with his crumbling sense of self, while Veronica watches in horror as the man she had grown to love starts to transform into a monster. It’s at this point that the movie takes on a very dark and viscerally disturbing journey as Brundle’s increased strength, energy and sexual prowess quickly make way for deteriorating health as the fly’s genetics begin to dominate. As the transformation progresses, Brundle’s physical and mental deterioration becomes increasingly horrifying, and it’s that change in mentality that is truly terrifying. When Seth tells Ronnie “I’m an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over… and the insect is awake” we start to understand just how bad things have gotten and how worse they are likely to get.

 

We’re talking new levels of bad.

The film’s central theme of transformation is embodied by the horrifying yet mesmerizing metamorphosis of Seth Brundle. Jeff Goldblum’s portrayal of Brundle’s physical and psychological descent into the grotesque is nothing short of extraordinary and the makeup and practical effects by Oscar Winning make-up artist Chris Walas were truly astonishing, and Brundle’s transformation sequences are simultaneously revolting and awe-inspiring. Cronenberg’s ability to craft this evolution so meticulously and vividly adds a layer of tension and unease throughout the film. But what makes this all so absolutely horrifying is that we see it all through the stricken eyes of a woman who truly loved him. Geena Davis gives an emotionally packed performance as a woman pushed to the very brink of madness – finding out you could be pregnant with a monster will test anyone’s sanity – and the film’s chilling tagline “Be afraid, be very afraid!” sums up the movie perfectly. And while this movie does have a “Beauty and the Beast” element to its story it definitely doesn’t have a fairy tale happy ending.

 

There’s no “Kiss of True Love” in this movie.

Stray Observations:

• Both Seth Brundle and Andre Delambre, who was the title character in the 1958 version of The Fly, had labs accessed by a large sliding metal door. It’s nice when “mad scientists” can share design themes.
• The idea of the teleportation accident causing a progressively more disturbing transformation over time was originally suggested by actor David Hedison when they were making the 1958 original
• While the setting is never explicitly discussed by the characters, we do see well-known Toronto locations like the CN Tower and Kensington Market, but then we see Seth using American currency.
• Seth realizes he has to teach the computer to be “crazy about the flesh” to teach it “the poetry of steak” which seems like a rather hard thing to teach a computer.
• Veronica tells Seth that “Something went wrong” which is also what Ellie Satler told Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, which is nice as Jeff Goldblum played both of those movie geniuses.
• Seth corrects Veronica when she calls the baboon a monkey, but baboons are monkeys. Sheesh, and he calls himself a scientist.
• It’s never explained why Seth Brundle uses baboons for his “live tests” and not your standard guinea pig or lab rat. Ethical aspect aside, a baboon can cost up to $3,500 while a rat is about $10 or $20.

 

An inside/out rat would also be easier to clean up.

The heart of Cronenberg’s adaptation of The Fly is the love story between Seth Brundle and Veronica Quaife, with the film delving into the complexities of their relationship as it evolves from professional curiosity to genuine love to heartbreaking tragedy. Their chemistry is undeniable and both actors deliver powerful performances, which I’m sure was helped by the fact that Goldblum and Davis were an actual couple at the time of filming. This all went towards making the audience deeply invested in their characters. This retelling of a classic sci-fi story skillfully weaves elements of body horror with a poignant exploration of the human condition. As Brundle slowly becomes more insect than human, his desperation and fear are palpable, and the film forces us to confront our own fear of physical and mental decay. It is a deeply philosophical horror film, exploring themes of identity, love and mortality, all within the confines of a science fiction framework.

 

Mind you, it’s a really icky science framework.

With this tale of horror, Cronenberg masterfully builds tension with a gradual, suspenseful narrative arc until it culminates in a climax that leaves a lasting impression. The fly symbolism is subtly integrated into the film, adding depth and nuance to the story. Cronenberg’s direction is masterful. He skillfully balances moments of dread with touches of dark humour, making the film as emotionally affecting as it is terrifying. The screenplay deftly explores themes of scientific hubris, love, and the inherent fear of the unknown. The dialogue is sharp and thought-provoking, providing substance to the horrific visuals. Then there is Howard Shore’s hauntingly atmospheric score which complements the film beautifully, enhancing the emotional impact of each scene. The production design, including Brundle’s teleportation pods and the transformation chamber, is both visually striking and thematically resonant.

 

Let’s hear it for mad science!

In the end, 1986’s The Fly is a powerful and thought-provoking horror film, one that combined gruesome body horror with a poignant and tragic love story. Cronenberg’s direction, along with strong performances by Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, make it a standout in the horror genre, exploring the boundaries of science and the dark aspects of human ambition. This is also a rare example of a remake that not only pays homage to its predecessor but also surpasses it in terms of storytelling and craftsmanship. If you haven’t experienced this classic yet, be prepared to be both horrified and moved by this unforgettable sci-fi horror masterpiece.

Curse of the Fly (1965) – Review

If 20th Century Fox’s Return of the Fly was a sequel that didn’t need to exist – the ending of the original movie didn’t exactly lend itself to a follow-up – then the existence of a third installment is even more baffling. But Hollywood has never been known for letting a nickel escape their coffers so in 1965 we not only got another sequel that didn’t need to exist, but one that didn’t make a whole lot of sense either.

Directed by Don Sharp, this film explores the themes of science gone awry and the consequences of unchecked experimentation in a more modestly budgeted manner. Set in rural Quebec, the movie starts in a rather interesting way, introducing us to the film’s protagonist, Patricia Stanley (Carole Gray), as she escapes from a mental hospital while wearing nothing more than her panties and a bra. She then runs into Martin Delambre (George Baker) who is on his way to Montreal but he quickly puts that off when a mostly naked woman crosses his path. As most would, I’m sure. After a rather whirlwind romance, which appears to be nothing more than a week of picnicking, the two get married and Martin brings her home. Unfortunately, what she doesn’t know is that Martin and his father Henri (Brian Donlevy) are engaged in radical experiments in teleportation, which have already had horrific consequences. These two have also experimented on themselves and while Henri only has a few nice radiation burns for his efforts, we learn that if Martin is not given continuous treatments he gets a rather distressing skin condition called “Instant Aging.”

 

“Keep them guessing with Oil of Olay.”

This is the wonderful setting that poor Patricia has found herself in – if you marry a mad scientist this has to be expected – but if you are a fan of the previous Fly movies a bit of confusion may have set in by this point. In short, Curse of the Fly has little to no connection at all with the previous two films, mainly because no Fly monster is shown and only the Delambre name and the premise of teleportation remain is carried over. In the original film, Andre Delambre was the main protagonist, wonderfully played by David Hedison, and in the Return of the Fly his son Philippe took up his father’s work in teleportation, but in this movie, we have father Henri Delambre as the son of Andre Delambre and then there are Henri’s sons. Martin and Albert (Michael Graham),  with poor Albert being the son who is stationed in England and has to man the receiving station for their teleportation experiments, while his dad and brother create monsters back home. This left me wondering if this was some alternate “Fly Universe” that had somehow stumbled into.

 

Is this a failed experiment or an inhabitant of the Negative Zone?

There isn’t much of a plot to Curse of the Fly, with much of the action centring around Henri trying to stay one step ahead of the cops, as well as idiot Martin hiding the fact that he’s not only a mad scientist but a bigamist as well – his wife Judith (Mary Manson) is another failed test subject that he keeps locked up in the stables with their other failures. These test subjects are all horribly disfigured and insane because they hadn’t nailed all the kinks out of the whole teleportation thing. We also have some conflict between Henri and his son Albert as he wants to get out of this mad teleportation business because he’s found a girl of his own and you certainly can’t blame him. Who wouldn’t choose going out on a date with a nice attractive English girl over spending time cleaning up the mutant messes your dad and older brother have created?

 

“I really should have just gone to college.”

Fleshing out the cast we have two Asian servants to the Delambre’s, Tai (Burt Kwok) and Wan (Yvette Rees). And while neither of them are hunchback, Tai is an able-bodied assistant to their experiments while Wan spends most of her time taking care of the caged failures and psychologically torturing Patricia – it’s good to have a hobby – and for the bulk of the film we have Patricia being “haunted” by Judith while both Martin and Henri tell her that she’s just imagining things. When Patricia claims to have seen a horrifyingly mutated woman playing the piano, she is told it was just a dream.  She then finds a signed photo of the woman on her night table – with a lovely note to her husband – and is once again told that she must have imagined it. I should point out that gaslighting is never a good thing but worse when it’s someone who has escaped from a mental hospital.  Early, when Patricia stumbled across the stables, where those teleportation failures were locked up, I knew things weren’t going to turn out well.

 

Did no one tell Patricia the story of Bluebeard?

If that isn’t enough “plot” enough for you, well, we also have police Inspector Ronet (Jeremy Wilkin) and the headmistress of the asylum, Madame Fournier (Rachel Kempson), tracing Patricia to the Delambre estate and trying to drag her back to the nuthouse.  The police involvement then leads to the discovery that asshat Martin is already married and that his wife is one of the disfigured people locked up in the stables – when confronted by Ronet about his marriage to another woman he and his dad toss out some bullshit about her running off and Martin getting a Mexican divorce – but with the police becoming such a nuisance Henri’s decides to clean up shop, which entails the murdering of the two other failed experiments – who were former assistants of Henri’s and are now the aforementioned mutants locked up in the stables along with Judith. And despite Martin’s limp protests that this is all kinds of wrong, his father overrules him by stating “We’re scientists, we have to do things we hate, even sicken us.” Seriously, we can’t wait to see this man die.

 

Justice for Judith!

Stray Observations:

• Bra and panties are certainly a strange choice of wardrobe for an escape from a mental asylum, but I’m sure all the young boys in the audience were thrilled.
• When our heroine checks in at a local hotel with Martin she registers under her own name, possibly she doesn’t understand how the whole “fugitive” thing works.
• This third instalment may stray from plot elements introduced in the previous entries but it does continue the tradition of taking place in Quebec while having hardly anybody speak with a French accent.
• The Asian servant Tai is portrayed by Chinese actor Burt Kwok but the other Asian servant, Wan, is played by Welsh actress Yvette Rees in very unfortunate “yellow face” make-up. Are we to believe that the filmmakers couldn’t find one Asian actress for this supporting role?
• Wan has a definite Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca vibe to her as she basically gaslights poor Patricia by releasing the “previous” Mrs. Delambre from her cell and placing her photograph next to Patricia’s bed.
• A photograph said to be Andre Delambre after becoming The Fly is, in fact, a shot of the character Philippe from Return of the Fly. Also, the fact that no one took a photo of The Fly, in either of those films, calls into question the very existence of this picture.

 

“We had to get a man with a fly head in this movie somehow.”

While this third instalment in the “Fly” science fiction horror film series attempts to continue the story of the Delambre family’s genetic experiments gone awry, it ultimately falls short of the standards set by its predecessors. One of the primary issues with Curse of the Fly is its departure from the iconic premise of the previous two films. Instead of focusing on the consequences of teleportation technology, the film takes a different path by exploring Delambre’s messed-up family and the gaslighting of a mentally distraught woman. This significant shift in focus diminishes the core identity of the series, leaving us without the intriguing exploration of the consequences of scientific hubris that characterized the first two films, instead, we get a couple of mad scientists acting like complete dicks.

 

I think putting your wife in a telapod is grounds for divorce.

The characters in Curse of the Fly are not as well-developed or memorable as those in the original film, the absence of David Hedison, who portrayed the protagonist in the 1958 original is keenly felt, and these new characters fail to elicit the same level of empathy or interest. The lack of a compelling lead character makes it difficult for us to become emotionally invested in the story, which is a crucial element in any horror film. We have a cast of mostly forgettable and one-dimensional figures whose actions often feel contrived, and their decisions lack any real sense of logic or coherence. This lack of character depth severely hampers our ability to invest emotionally in the film. The character of Patricia Stanley could have worked as an interesting lead but actress Carole Gray wasn’t given much to do within this ridiculous plot, other than scream and faint, which is a shame as she’s the only remotely likable character in the film.

 

“There was a young lady who married a fly, perhaps she’ll die.”

Another glaring issue with this sequel is its lack of a compelling narrative. Unlike its predecessor, which skilfully balanced science fiction with genuine emotional depth, this instalment seems to rely on shock value and visual effects rather than a well-constructed plot. The storyline feels disjointed and haphazardly put together, leaving viewers struggling to engage with the characters or care about their fates. Furthermore, the special effects and makeup in Curse of the Fly are a mixed bag and the transformation scenes, which were a highlight of the original film, lack the same impact in this instalment. The creature designs are also less than impressive, and the makeup effects are underwhelming when compared to the groundbreaking work done in the 1958 version. While it’s important to consider the limitations of the era in which the film was made, there were certainly other films of the time that managed to create more convincing visual effects.

 

Beware, mad science at work.

In conclusion, Curse of the Fly is a disappointing follow-up to the first two films in the series and while it tries to continue exploring themes of science gone awry, it ultimately falls short in terms of character development, pacing and special effects. It is a mediocre entry in the franchise that is best approached by die-hard fans looking to complete their experience rather than by those seeking a satisfying continuation of the story.