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.

Return of the Fly (1959) – Review

With the Return of the Fly, 20th Century Fox had the unenviable task of following a groundbreaking entry in science fiction horror film that had captured pathos and horror in a new way, unfortunately, it was with a sequel that tried and failed to capture the same level of suspense, depth, and innovation that made its predecessor a cinematic milestone.

Directed by Edward Bernds this sequel picks up where the original left off, following the legacy of the ill-fated scientist Andre Delambre and his experiments with teleportation. André Delambre’s son, Philippe (Brett Halsey), is now determined to continue his father’s work, even after learning from his uncle François Delambre (Vincent Price) of the tragic and horrific consequences that resulted in his father committing suicide, after being turned into some sort of fly/man hybrid. Phillippe is so single-minded in his desire to follow in his father’s footsteps that he even blackmails his uncle into funding his experiments, threatening to sell his shares of the family business to anyone willing to buy them.

 

“Come on, what are the odds of the same thing happening to me?”

Needless to say, the odds are not in his favour as he hires Alan Hinds (David Frankham) as an assistant, because not only does he turn out to be an industrial spy, hoping to sell the secrets of teleportation to the highest bidder with the aid of fence Max Barthold (Dan Seymour), who works out of a local funeral home. When Alan’s criminality is revealed he’s the one who turns Philippe into The Fly by tossing both Philippe and a fly into the disintegrator-integrator. And why would Alan do such a thing? Well, he knows Phillippe has a horrible aversion to flies so integrating him with such an insect would be the ultimate dick move. Of course, this movie isn’t all criminal subterfuge and mad science because what good is a monster movie without a female to scream in horror at the creature of the day? In that role we have Cecile Bonnard (Danielle De Metz) as Philippe’s childhood sweetheart, sadly, she’s barely given any screen time and thus the tragic love story that was the backbone of the original film is completely missing here.

 

Beauty and the Beast this is not.

Stray Observations:

• This sequel takes place twenty years after the original but Francois Delambre, once again played by Vincent Price, looks as if he’s hardly aged a day. More mad science, you say?
• The film is set in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, yet all the public signage is in English, and like in the previous film, hardly anyone speaks with a French accent.
• We get the old science fiction chestnut of “He ventured into areas of knowledge where man was not meant to go.” All we needed was Vincent Price to rant about “God’s domain” to make it complete.
• Phillipe tells Alan that they have to “Go back into town and get my father’s papers out of the old lab” but in the original film, we saw André Delambre burning all of his notes and records of the experiment.
• Their first experiment with a live subject resulted in a “giant” guinea pig, and while they call this a failure all I could think of was “Didn’t they just solve world hunger?”
• When André Delambre had his teleportation accident he ended up with the head and one arm of a fly, that his son would end up with the basically same combination, with only an added fly leg for variety’s sake, is beyond coincidental.
• Phillipe in killer fly mode heads over to the morgue and kills Max Barthold, but other than earlier seeing Alan walk out of the funeral home he had no reason to believe Max was involved.
• François posits the question “What if Phillipe does not have the mind of a human, but the murderous brain of a fly?” While that is an interesting question I’m fairly certain flies do not have murderous brains.

 

Murder is kind of a human thing.

If one were to look up the word “contrived” in the dictionary I wouldn’t be too surprised to find a reference to this sequel in the notes. There is nothing organic or natural about the script for Edward Bernds’ Return of the Fly, instead of building upon the intriguing concept of the original film the sequel opts for a nearly identical storyline. It revisits the idea of a scientist experimenting with teleportation, leading to disastrous consequences but with little innovation or fresh perspective. This choice results in a predictable and unengaging plot that fails to capture the imagination as its predecessor did. Much of the film’s running time is spent in the laboratory setting and despite it being the “scene of the crime” and the impetus to this film’s monster, not much interesting happens there, well, other than the moment when Alan kills a police investigator and integrates him with a guinea pig.

 

Basically, Alan is kind of a dick.

The film’s characters are also notably one-dimensional and unmemorable. The protagonist, Philippe Delambre, played by an almost comatose Brett Halsey, lacks the depth and charisma that made David Hedison’s portrayal of the doomed scientist in the original so compelling. The supporting cast fares no better, with most of them coming off as uninspired and forgettable, even Vincent Price seems somewhat lethargic in this outing. Moreover, the special effects in Return of the Fly are a far cry from the groundbreaking work found in the first film. While the original The Fly was known for its impressive practical effects and iconic sequences, this sequel relies on cheap and unconvincing visual effects that are more likely to elicit unintentional laughter than genuine horror or awe. The transformation sequences, in particular, lack the realism and impact that made the original so memorable and the giant fly head in this film is more goofy-looking than it is scary, and the less said about the little fly with Philippe’s head the better.

 

“I’m ready for my close-up Mister DeMille.”

In addition to its technical and storytelling shortcomings, Return of the Fly also fails to capture the thematic depth of the original. While The Fly explored themes of scientific ambition, ethics, and the consequences of tampering with nature, the sequel fails to delve into these themes with the same level of sophistication, instead, we get a more straightforward and superficial approach, missing an opportunity to deliver a thought-provoking narrative, and while Vincent Price’s presence is a welcome one, even his talent cannot salvage a film that is ultimately marred by its lack of ambition and creativity.

Despite its flaws, Return of the Fly does deliver a decent dose of old-school sci-fi chills and thrills. Cinematographer Brydon Baker does his best to create mood and tension – made a little easier as for this outing the filmmakers went for black and white photography versus the lush colour of the original and the haunting music provided by composers Paul Sawtell and Bert Shefter was able to create a nice sense of dread.

 

To be fair, this particular look did become iconic.

In conclusion, Return of the Fly is a somewhat serviceable sequel that will most likely appeal to fans of 1950s sci-fi horror and Vincent Price enthusiasts, and while it doesn’t reach the heights of its predecessor, and has its share of flaws, it offers a decent dose of nostalgic entertainment. If you can overlook its shortcomings and appreciate it as a product of its time, you may find it to be a quirky and fun addition to the classic sci-fi horror genre.

The Fly (1958) – Review

As the 1950s were drawing to a close a science fiction entry would explode on the screen and bring the world one of cinema’s most disturbing creations, in a movie that wasn’t so much about “mad science” as it was “Oh my god, that is so gross” science. That film would be director Kurt Neumann’s The Fly, which would not only put forth interesting ethical questions but would also help launch the horror career of Vincent Price.

Based on the 1957 short story by George Langelaan, the film’s premise centres around the enigmatic scientist who is working on a groundbreaking teleportation experiment, and by groundbreaking, I mean things are going to go horribly wrong because, like most stories in the genre, we veer into mad-science territory. What is fascinating about this sci-fi horror outing is its plot structure as the film is primarily told with a flashback format, with the movie opening with Hélène Delambre (Patricia Owens) crushing the head and left arm of her husband, André Delambre (David Hedison), in a hydraulic press and then calmly calling up her brother-in-law François Delambre (Vincent Price) to confess to the crime. François quickly notifies Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall) of the Montreal police and our mystery is off and running. While Hélène may have confessed to the crime, she refuses to provide a motive and begins acting strangely. In particular, she is obsessed with flies, more pointedly, a white-headed fly with a funny leg.

 

“Was André practicing mad science again, is that it?”

While not exactly made science, André invention, a pair of telepods, does hold the promise of revolutionizing transportation by allowing instantaneous travel from one location to another, of course, it leads to tragedy when he becomes the victim of an experiment gone horribly wrong. It seems he wasn’t all that careful and let a common housefly enter the disintegrator-integrator – I must say telepods is a much better name, thank you David Cronenberg – and this results in André’s DNA becoming entangled in the teleportation process, leading to a gruesome fusion of man and insect. Now sporting a fly head and left arm, he tasks his wife with finding the fly that has his human head and arm – with some helpful assistance from their son Philippe (Charles Herbert) – and it becomes a race against time as the fly’s instincts take over his brain, with André slowly becoming more monster than man.  Which is the kind of thing that will put a strain on even the strongest relationships.

 

“Hélène, I think we should start seeing other people.”

Stray Observations:

• David Hedison suggested he wear progressive makeup effects that showed him in a combined part human/part fly state which would get progressively more disturbing as the story went along, instead of just revealing a fully formed fly head as depicted in the film, and while the studio thought this was too expensive it’s an idea that David Cronenberg would embrace for his remake.
• The story takes place in Montreal, Quebec, but other than the odd small part the bulk of the cast do not have French accents despite the location and them all having French names.
• André Delambre may not exactly be a “mad scientist” but using the family’s pet cat for an experiment is a bit of a dick move.  The sound of the disembodied cat meowing still haunts me.
• The sound made by the teleporter in this film is the same sound heard when the prototype disappears in the George Pal adaptation of The Time Machine.
• One of the other sound effects used in the film for the disintegrator/integrator is the “bass guitars played backwards” effect used for the Martians’ Heat-Rays in George Pal’s The War of the Worlds.
• A fly’s vision is not composed of several identical small images grouped together, as is seen in the film. This “insect trope” would remain a staple of horror films and be used in such “classics” as Empire of the Ants.
• The Fly is one of the rarest of movie monsters who doesn’t actually kill anyone, he commits “suicide” before his fly half can take over.
• Sadly, Andre did not receive the proportional amount of strength a fly as he seemed to have difficulty picking up Helene when she fainted.

 

I guess a career as a superhero was not in the cards.

Directed by Kurt Neumann, The Fly’s strength lies in its ability to build tension and unease, as well as its compelling character development. Vincent Price, who plays Francois Delambre, Andre’s brother, delivers a standout performance as the compassionate family friend determined to uncover the truth behind Andre’s bizarre transformation, and as the story unfolds it skilfully explores the emotional turmoil of the Delambre family as they grapple with the horrifying consequences of Andre’s experiment. What sets this film apart from many other science fiction movies of its era is its willingness to explore profound themes. The film delves into the consequences of scientific discovery and the boundaries of human knowledge. It poses questions about the ethical implications of tampering with the fundamental nature of existence, making it a thought-provoking experience for audiences.

 

“Don’t worry, Phillipe, I’ll make sure nothing like this happens to you.”

Strangely, of the three classic “Fly Movies” this entry is the only one shot in colour, with the studio moving the production of this film out from under the less-respectable Regal banner and making it a more prestige offering. The money and talent for this science fiction horror offering were certainly not the norm for this era and the end result is a testament to the practical effects and makeup talents of all involved, with the transformation of Andre into a grotesque human-fly hybrid being particularly impressive for its time. The slow reveal of the insectoid features on Andre’s face is haunting and unforgettable. One of the film’s most iconic moments is the climactic unveiling of Andre’s final, pitiable state and it’s the use of suspense, coupled with a chilling musical score, that adds to the overall atmosphere of dread. The story is captivating, with a surprising twist that leaves a lasting impression.

 

“Help me! Help meeeeee!”

While the special effects are a little dated they still possess a certain charm and remain integral to the film’s appeal and the appearance of a man with the head of a fly has become an iconic image one that has echoed through pop culture over the years. The Fly is a testament to the ingenuity of filmmakers in the late 1950s who managed to create horrifying imagery with limited resources. As for the performances, the cast of this genre classic is all commendable, particularly that of David Hedison and Patricia Owens. Hedison brings depth and sympathy to the character of Andre, effectively conveying his desperation and inner turmoil. Owens, in the role of Helene, delivers a powerful and emotional performance as she grapples with the shocking events surrounding her husband and while the film stars Vincent Price and David Hedison playing the title character it is Patricia Owens who really carries this film.

 

She’s a solid Scream Queen as well.

In conclusion, The Fly is a classic of its genre, offering a thought-provoking narrative, memorable performances, and a spine-tingling sense of horror. It has rightfully earned its place in the annals of science fiction and horror cinema and is a must-see for anyone interested in exploring the darker side of human curiosity and the consequences of scientific experimentation. This timeless gem continues to captivate and terrify audiences, proving that the fear of the unknown is a universal theme that transcends generations.

The Thing (1982) – Review

In 1951, producer Howard Hawks and director Christian Nyby adapted John W. Campbell Jr.’s novella Who Goes There? into the science fiction classic The Thing from Another World, unfortunately, practical and visual effects of the time were not able to pull off the shapeshifting alien monstrosity from Campell’s story and this resulted in James Arness dressing up standard monster make-up. Flash forward to 1982 and the world was treated to an adaptation that would bring the horror of Campbell’s novella viscerally to life.

As was the case in the original story and 1951 adaptation, this remake is set in the desolate Antarctic landscape but it opens with a Norwegian research team pursuing a dog across the icy tundra. The dog finds its way to an American research station, Outpost 31, and the Norwegians, in their frantic attempts to kill it, accidentally trigger a series of events that set the stage for a nightmare of horror and paranoia. The American crew at Outpost 31, led by helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russell), takes in the seemingly harmless dog and is puzzled by the violent actions of the Norwegian researchers. MacReady and the crew’s doctor, Dr. Copper (Richard Dysart), decide to visit the Norwegian camp to uncover the truth. There, they discover a horrific scene of death and destruction, along with a mysterious alien spacecraft buried in the ice.

 

Did Han Solo crash the Millennium Falcon here?

Back at their station, the crew begins to unravel a terrifying secret. The alien organism that was aboard that craft is capable of mimicking any living being it comes into contact with and is now loose among them. Paranoia and distrust mount as they realize that any one of them, or even the dog, could be the Thing. As they struggle to survive, the group becomes increasingly isolated and paranoid, and the tension builds to a breaking point. It’s here where Carpenter explores themes of identity, trust, and the fragility of the human psyche in the face of an unimaginable threat. The story becomes a battle for survival not just against a deadly extraterrestrial creature but also against the disintegration of the group’s cohesion. Blair (Wilfred Brimley), the senior biologist, grows paranoid after running a computer simulation that indicates the creature could assimilate all life on Earth in a matter of years, and his steps to end the threat lead to an even greater sense of isolation and paranoia.

 

“Guys, start writing your wills, we’re all fucked.”

With no means of communication or escape and the relentless snowstorm outside, the crew must confront their worst fears, leading to a series of gruesome and suspenseful confrontations with the alien organism. The film keeps us on the edge of our seats as it leads to a nerve-wracking and unforgettable climax where no one can be trusted, and the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. Carpenter builds relentless tension that is driven by the fear that any one of these men could be an imposter, creating a palpable sense of dread that rarely lets up. Childs, (Kieth David), the outpost’s chief mechanic makes some brutal pragmatic observations while his dope-smoking assistant Palmer (David Clennon) has a more free-formed process, and Palmer’s observation of “You gotta be fuckin’ kidding” when the head of Norris (Charles Hallahan), the team’s geologist, detaches and grows spider legs perfectly captures the attitude many viewers will be having at this point.

 

You have to admit, that is a pretty fair response to this.

As the plot unfolds the ensuing atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust becomes palpable and Carpenter expertly crafts an environment where no one is truly safe. As one after another, they are taken out by this otherworldly monster. It is this element that brings the aspect of a “And Then There Were None” Agatha Christie mystery to the proceedings as the cast of characters is whittled down one by one over the film’s 109 minutes. Of course, the real mystery comes from the film’s ambiguous ending, which has been a subject of debate and discussion among fans for decades. This open-ended conclusion adds to the film’s enduring appeal, as it invites viewers to ponder the fate of the remaining characters. John Carpenter’s remake is more than just a terrifying monster movie; it’s a profound exploration of human nature under extreme pressure one that film delves into themes of identity, trust, and the thin veneer of civilization when confronted with unimaginable horror. It raises essential questions about the human condition and our inherent fear of the unknown.

 

Also, what you find in the ice, leave in the ice.

Stray Observations:

• Unlike the 1951 adaptation, there are no females running around John Carpenter’s The Thing, that said, there is one female presence in the film, that of Carpenter’s then-wife Adriene Barbeau who voices the chess computer that MacCready loses to.
• When the creature is seen absorbing several of the station dogs part of it splits off and goes up through the roof of the kennel, in clear view of everyone watching, but no one seems concerned that part of the alien monster is loose and still running around.
• Flamethrowers would be useless in Antarctica, especially outside, gasoline has too high a freezing temperature to be forced out of a tank without solidifying.
• Even though the group is told that the alien organism is highly infective they don’t seem all that concerned about sharing the same knife to get their blood samples.
• The film does not explain the purpose of the American team in Antarctica but as the Antarctica Treaty dictates that Antarctica must only be used for peaceful and/or scientific the profusion of pistols, shotguns, automatic weapons flamethrowers and explosives is entirely ridiculous for an Antarctic research facility.

 

The treaty clearly needs to be updated to cover alien threats.

The film’s strength lies in its practical effects and creature design, which remain astonishingly effective even by today’s standards. The grotesque transformations and otherworldly horrors are both visceral and nightmarish, thanks to the brilliant work of makeup and special effects artist Rob Bottin. The imagery created in The Thing is unforgettable, and it’s a testament to the craftsmanship and creativity of the production team. Carpenter’s direction is impeccable, building an atmosphere of claustrophobia and impending doom within the research station while Ennio Morricone’s haunting, minimalist score adds to the overall sense of unease. The combination of Carpenter’s minimalist yet effective direction and Morricone’s unsettling music contributes significantly to the film’s enduring legacy. Not to be left out is Dean Cundey’s cinematography which captures the bleak Antarctic setting in all its frigid, isolated glory. The use of wide, snow-covered landscapes against the claustrophobic interiors of the research station creates an eerie sense of both isolation and desolation.

 

When paranoia is a good thing.

While Carpenter’s adaptation is most famous for Rob Bottin’s practical effects without its impeccable cast this would not be the classic it turned out to be. All of the actors give strong performances, with Kurt Russell’s portrayal of R.J. MacReady being a tour de force. His grizzled, every-man persona serves as an anchor amidst the chaos, and his performance remains one of the standout elements of the film. But he’s not alone, the ensemble cast of great character actors effectively portray the growing mistrust and terror that grips them as they confront the shape-shifting horror in their midst, there is not a single miss-step in the bunch, from Wilfred Brimley’s descent into madness to Donald Moffat’s exasperated station commander “I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I’d rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!” Basically, with this great script and collection of amazing actors, this film was destined for greatness.

 

I miss being a Disney kid.

Unfortunately, the road to greatness was a rocky one as the film received a broad selection of negative reviews upon its release with comments from critics ranging from “instant junk” to “wretched excess” and while most reviews of the actors’ performances were generally positive the film’s special effects were simultaneously lauded and lambasted for being technically brilliant but visually repulsive and excessive. Variety called it “the most vividly gruesome horror film to ever stalk the screens” while others called it more disgusting than frightening. This proves the age-old adage that, you can’t please everyone. One of the biggest stumbling blocks of this film’s release was that it was up against Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extraterrestrial which gave the world a more optimistic take on an alien encounter as opposed to Carpenter’s more nihilistic approach.

 

This thing doesn’t give a crap about Reese’s Pieces.

In conclusion, John Carpenter’s The Thing is a masterclass in suspense and horror, from its timeless practical effects to its chilling atmosphere this movie has become a cornerstone of the genre and cemented itself as one of the best remakes of all time. I’d like to end this review with a quote from the great Richard Masur, which I think sums up this movie pretty well, “I dunno what the hell’s in there, but it’s weird and pissed off, whatever it is.”