*. The Fly II didn’t receive many positive reviews. In fact, it was panned. And I remember not thinking much of it at the time. Returning to it thirty years later I have to say I appreciate it a lot more. It’s not bad at all.
*. Why the change in opinion? For one thing, I think the critics who dumped on it may have been giving Cronenbergr’s The Fly a bit too much credit for being something more than a creature feature. Yes, Goldblum and Davis are strong as the leads, so we do buy into their relationship (which was a real one at the time). But it’s still a monster movie, with their characters taking a back seat to the make-up in the end. The same kind of story plays out in The Fly II, and while it dials up the gross-out effects I think it does so less than is imagined. Director Chris Walas (who’d been the effects man on The Fly) “specifically avoided” going full gore. We even have to start off with a version of the shocking maggot-birth scene from the first movie in large part because that’s all the gross stuff we’re going to get for a while.
*. Another reason for my changing evaluation of The Fly II is my increased appreciation for practical effects. As Walas says on the commentary, CGI does some things remarkably well but there’s “something about the reality of the moment that it just hasn’t captured yet.” And while Walas didn’t want to just make an effects movie he obviously didn’t have any issues with returning to what worked well the first time. This movie would have been so bad with CGI, especially the CGI they had in 1989. Instead we get some really good stuff (Martin in the cocoon, the man’s head dissolving in acid vomit and the other head being crushed by the elevator) mixed in with some merely OK parts (the mutant dog and transformed Bartok, primarily).
*. I also really appreciated Eric Stoltz playing Son of the Fly. As an aside, I’m not sure why they didn’t call this Son of the Fly. On the DVD commentary track Walas says that he tried to have a different title and “would have preferred Son of the Fly,” but this was “back in the day when sequels had to have a 2 in them.” Well, at least he got Roman numerals. That’s class.
*. Back to Stoltz: he’s very relatable without the goofiness or charisma of Goldblum. But then that wouldn’t fit with this story, which I find to be darker. Martin Brundle is a victim of his father’s original sin, and it’s hard to imagine him happy at the end (even in the deleted ending, which leaves him fishing off the dock with Beth). Let’s face it, he had a pretty traumatic, if accelerated, childhood.
*. I’ve read that Keanu Reeves, Josh Brolin, and Vincent D’Onofrio were all considered for the part of Martin as well. You always hear stories like this. I think it’s likely that everyone tries out for or is interested in every part at some point in their career.
*. The rest of the cast are role players. Daphne Zuniga is the girl. Lee Richardson is the usual cruel corporate head, going by the name of Bartok (a Cronenbergian moniker if ever there was one, just as Simon Fraser University provided an authentic Cronenberg location). Gary Chalk is slimy as the security chief Scorby. They all take a back seat to the monster.
*. It’s fitting that the DVD commentary has Walas conversing with monster memorabilia curator Bob Burns. They spend a lot of time talking about growing up as “monster kids” and their shared love of monster movies, which Burns sees this as being an old-fashioned example of. To which I’d say Yes, and perhaps a bit of No.
*. The script is actually pretty tight. I like the way the young Martin’s helmet that squirts water returns at the end with his ability to spew vomit. And the way the fate of the dog is worked back into the story. At first I took the bonding between Martin and the dog to only be a typical pat-the-dog bit of business, but it’s not superfluous. Beth’s fly-fishing was also a meet cute that worked.
*. There’s real darkness at the end too. Indeed, it’s quite a bit darker than the first movie. I say that despite the far-fetched notion that somehow Martin can re-integrate by being genetically spliced with Bartok. But it’s the fate of Bartok that is the kicker. Walas doesn’t mention Tod Browning’s Freaks on the commentary, but the ending here seems to me to be a pretty clear nod to the end of that nightmare, with Bartok in the role of the transformed Cleopatra. And just as with Freaks I think it may have been too much for audiences. There seems to be a line, not directly related to gore or shock value, that even horror audiences don’t want to go over. There may be a rule that the punishment of the wicked not be so severe that we feel poetic justice has transgressed moral bounds.
I’m pretty sure I warned you yesterday that I was planning a piece about a dog going through a matter transmitter, and yet today you have the gall to attempt to beat me to the punch! You’ll be hearing from my lawyers Bartok and Bartok, you’re so predicatble! Get your own ideas!
Didn’t just attempt to beat you to the punch. Got in weeks ahead of you.
So you admit you’re stealing my ideas? It’s just the amount of time under dispute?
Are you still thinking of writing that movie about rebels in space fighting an evil empire of stormtroopers who are building a planet-destroying Death Star? With the hero being a member of an old order of knights wielding “light-swords”?
I’m not sure you can compare your pitiful musings to George Lucas writing Star Wars? You clearly read my comment yesterday, and stole my idea today! Blatant theft of IP! Shame!
So much projection. So much insecurity. Do I get upset about your using my Internet idea to publish your ravings?
Sigh. So you invented the internet, did you? I think we all know that Hedy Lamarr invented it. Why persist with these lies, why can’t you face up to the truth OH GOD OH MAN OH GOD OH MAN OH GOD
The van with friendly people from social services has been dispatched and is on the way.
You found them friendly? I instriucted them to show no mercy to you, but then again, theyre round almost every night at your house, if that’s the right term for a tin shed filled with leaves.
I didn’t even know about this. Not for me this, I can’t cope with vomit as much as I can’t cope with flies.
The fly has to vomit on its food to dissolve it because it doesn’t have teeth! It’s actually a neat idea.
Nope. It is a disgusting idea. Double blerk.
Agreed this one was darker, and surprisingly good for a sequel. My strongest memory from seeing a VHS tape 30 years ago was the agony of the dog, a mass of living gristle, as it crawled across the floor.
Yeah, that wasn’t nice. And then they gave it an extra twist with what happened to Bartok at the end. This is a nasty movie. One reason I think people were put off.
Ok, I think I’m in. Now I’ll just have to wait until the Fly and this are free on Prime 🙂
This is not a feel-good movie! You’ve been warned.
Warning noted 🙂