Target Earth (1954) – Review

The 1950s was the peak era for cinema’s exploration of extraterrestrial threats and one of the greatest threats depicted in sci-fi movies would be the robot, and while the likes of Gort from 20th Century Fox’s The Day the Earth Stood Still may be the most notable example of this, Allied Artists did their best with their own mechanical threat that would target Earth.

The plot of this film deals with a small group of people waking up to find the streets of Chicago abandoned, with nothing but the occasional dead body strewn across a sidewalk to “liven” things up. Our hero, Jack Brooks (Richard Denning), is a determined man from Detroit who woke up after a mugging only to find the streets around empty. He plans to get to the bottom of things but, unfortunately, this involves a lot of running down empty streets and looking concerned and that gets old fast. His sidekick/love interest is Nora King (Kathleen Crowley) whose failed suicide attempt, via sleeping pills, caused her to miss the invasion and she brings some sass and heart to the occasion. But let’s be real – her survival skills are about as reliable as a despondent lemming. These two are soon joined by Jim Wilson (Richard Reeves) and Vicki Harris (Virginia Grey), a pair of booze hounds who decided an empty city was the perfect opportunity for a pub crawl.

 

“We survived Al Capone, we can survive anything.”

Turns out that an unknown menace had caused the city’s evacuation but due to various reasons our protagonist missed it and the film splits its time between our heroes trying to figure out what has happened – when not bickering and looking for sandwiches – and the military and scientists deciding how best to proceed against what appears to be a nigh unstoppable robot invasion. This is a good thing because our leads are going to do fuck all to solve things. The characters in this science fiction offering are straight out of central casting for 1950s B-movies. We’ve got Richard Denning as the straight-shooting hero who is on a mission to uncover the truth while winning the heart of fair Kathleen Crowley, but the appearance of a lumbering robot menace soon puts the mystery into high gear and their chance of survival in question.  Sadly, you’re more likely to root for the killer robots by the end of this picture than these two. The cast on hand gives it their best shot, navigating deserted streets like they’re auditioning for a “Who Left Chicago?” theatre troop, but with a tough guy with a heart of gold, a damsel in distress and a token scientist (Whit Bissell) spouting technobabble faster than you can say “flying saucer” it all becomes ridiculous rather quickly.  Yet it still somehow manages to charm its way through the absurdity. Will the army be forced to use nuclear weapons? Will the scientists come up with the “magic bullet” that can stop these seemingly unstoppable robots? Can Nora and Jack find love before the world ends?

 

Could we, as an audience, care any less?

With Target Earth, director Sherman A. Rose provides us with a rollercoaster of B-movie clichés, introducing a group of strangers waking up to an empty Chicago, but they’re not in the mood for deep-dish pizza. Nope, they’re too busy wondering where the heck everyone went. Aliens? Zombies? An epic Cubs game? Cue the dramatic music and enter the extraterrestrial threat, which looks like a cross between a vacuum cleaner and a rejected Halloween costume. The lumbering aliens from the Ray Harryhausen classic Earth vs. the Flying Saucers looked a little silly but at least they had cool spaceships to zip around in while destroying national landmarks, in counterpoint, the invaders in this film don’t even have an intergalactic pot to piss in let alone a flying armada. Instead of thrilling alien attacks, we find ourselves subjected to such high-stakes drama as our plucky heroes finding themselves trapped with a psychotic killer (Robert Roark) who has his own survival plans.

 

Who needs killer robots when we have Wilmer the Gunsel to keep things exciting?

Stray Observations:

• The filmmakers make the bold choice of having its central characters having slept through the alien invasion, it’s not as if seeing the invasion would have interested us viewers.
• When Richard Dennings’ character encounters a panicked Kathleen Crowley on the barren Chicago streets he states “I’m not going to hurt you” and then proceeds to grab and slap her. Heroes of the 1950s were definitely cut from a different cloth.
• Frank theorizes the invaders are from Venus, stating “As far as I know it’s the only planet that might be capable of supporting human life. “It’s covered by a heavy layer of clouds, that means plenty of water, oxygen and hydrogen in its atmosphere.” In reality, Venus’s atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide with clouds of sulphuric acid, which is not at all conducive to human life.
• In 1964 Britain made their own robot invasion film called The Earth Dies Screaming with a small band of survivors facing a robotic threat. That entry was handled with a little more grace and aplomb than this one.
• At the end of the film the soldiers tell Frank that their oscillator smashes the robot’s “cathode ray tube” and puts them out of commission, but a cathode ray tube is essentially a television, which means that the devastating robot army operates on home entertainment electronics.

 

Thrill to calipers in action!

One of the film’s major drawbacks is its reliance on a formulaic plot, one that echoes the pervasive Cold War anxieties of its time. The fear of an unseen and alien menace infiltrating urban spaces was a recurring theme in 1950s sci-fi, but Target Earth fails to bring anything substantially new to the table. The narrative unfolds predictably, with very little deviation from the established conventions of the era, leaving us with a sense of déjà vu rather than genuine suspense. From a technical standpoint, Target Earth is hampered by its shoestring budget and cheesy-looking robot and while allowances can be made for the technological constraints of the era, the film’s visuals often come across as cheap and unconvincing, undermining its ability to immerse viewers in its sci-fi world. That the production had only one robot suit to depict their “alien invasion” definitely undercut the seriousness of the extraterrestrial threat. When finally revealed, these aliens appear laughably rudimentary by contemporary standards, further detracting from the film’s overall effectiveness.

 

Tremble at the power of the army of one.

If one were to forgive the filmmaker’s inability to create a believable alien invasion on a shoestring budget there is still the issue of the film’s inability to build and sustain suspense. The movie meanders through long stretches of characters sitting around a hotel room or navigating the empty streets of Chicago, resulting in a stagnant narrative that struggles to maintain momentum. Even when the threat of an alien presence is introduced it fails to generate the requisite sense of urgency or menace, diminishing the impact of the film’s climactic moments. But you know what? Despite all its flaws, Target Earth has a certain charm that’s hard to resist. Maybe it’s the earnestness of its cast, or maybe it’s the sheer audacity of its premise. Either way, it’s the kind of movie that’s best enjoyed with a bucket of popcorn and a group of friends who appreciate a good laugh – preferably with a side order of flying saucers.

 

“This was no boating accident?”

In summary, Target Earth is a fun enough entry in the annals of 1950s science fiction cinema, and while it offers little in the way of innovation or intrigue it does give us a cool-looking robot, even if just the one. Ultimately, this film serves as a reminder of the pitfalls of failing to have a decent budget or even a sensible script when you’re trying to deliver a compelling cinematic experience.

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.