This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.
Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!
Out of the movies Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel picked in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies’ ‘Best of 1986’ episode, I believe Eddie Munson would choose The Fly. As I explained in my 1986 introduction of Comparing with the Critics, Eddie’s story teaches that, sometimes, there’s more than meets the eye. Plus, Eddie’s imagination and creativity not only works in his favor as a Dungeon Master, it’s also helped his friends during their time in the Upside Down. From the way Gene and Roger described The Fly in the aforementioned ‘Best of 1986’ episode, it seemed like a different kind of horror and sci-fi film. Roger claims “the poignancy” of The Fly “is interesting in a horror film”. Meanwhile Gene not only states “there was, if you think about it, a certain nobility to The Fly”, he also says “the movie is beautifully made”. Films from the horror and sci-fi genre are infrequently covered on 18 Cinema Lane. In fact, the only sci-fi and/or horror movies included in the Comparing with the Critics series, so far, are The Bride and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, which were both released in 1985. But what can be appreciated is the creativity and imagination woven into those two genres, whether it’s how the duel in the Thunderdome was filmed in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome or giving Viktor a “hero’s journey” in The Bride. Though The Fly ended up on Roger’s top twenty best films of the year list, it did earn a place on Gene’s ten best films of ’86 list at number ten. However, despite not seeing every or most of the movies from 1986, The Fly would not be on my list of the top ten best films of that year. I also don’t think the film would be on Eddie’s top ten best films list either.
While sharing his thoughts on The Fly, Roger tells Gene, “Goldblum, I think, deserves an Academy Award nomination”. While I agree with Roger’s sentiments on Jeff Goldblum’s portrayal of Seth Brundle, I also believe Geena Davis (who portrayed Veronica “Ronnie” Quaife) deserved a nomination from the Academy. Individually, Geena’s and Jeff’s performance was solid. From the tearful heartbreak Ronnie displays as Seth becomes unrecognizable to Seth’s erratic behavior over the course of the story, Jeff and Geena made their characters interesting to watch. But together, Geena and Jeff share very nice on-screen chemistry! In The Fly’s very first scene, Seth and Ronnie meet at a scientific event. Their interaction contains a sense of awkwardness, as they don’t yet know how they feel about the other person. But because Ronnie and Seth appear comfortable with who they are as individuals, the conversation isn’t embarrassing or cringey. Instead, it kind of comes across as flirty. Incorporating smiles, Seth’s widening eyes, and Ronnie’s glances away from Seth add to their growing feelings for each other. Even tilts of the head indicate how equally engaged they are in their interaction. The more I saw Seth and Ronnie together, the more I wished Jeff and Geena starred in another movie together portraying a couple!
Gene tells Roger during their discussion of The Fly how he doesn’t believe science fiction movies, but was able to believe The Fly. One of the reasons why, according to Gene, is “it has to do with makeup”. The Academy certainly agreed with Gene, as The Fly won the Best Makeup category at the 59th Academy Awards. I also agree with Gene and the Academy. The idea of a human transforming into a fly sounds pretty disturbing and grotesque. Through the makeup design of Stephan Dupuis and Chris Walas, that aforementioned transformation was brought to life on screen in a believably horrifying way. At the start of Seth’s transformation, he develops little hairs on his back and his face appears discolored. But as the story progresses, so does his transformation. Seth’s teeth become pointy before falling out. His fingers morph together as his hands turn into the feet of a fly. Seth’s body even develops lumpy growths that make him look like a complete stranger. What adds to the horrifying nature of the makeup design is not just how believable the transformation itself appears, but also how realistic the effects look.
During their coverage of The Fly in the ‘Best of 1986’ episode of Siskel & Ebert & the Movies, Roger comments on the believability of the movie. He tells Gene how “the screenplay was written and acted smart”. Roger also appreciated how Seth wasn’t a scientist “who speaks in cliches out of the thirties”. To add to Roger’s compliments, I’ll say that I liked how the story’s scientific ideas were woven into the script. Throughout The Fly, the topic of teleportation is discussed by Ronnie and Seth. What started as a magazine interview turns into a collaborative book. Over time, the focused topic changes to genetic fusion between Seth and a fly. Ronnie’s discovery and Seth’s computer lead to this specific topic being brought up. The way these scientific subjects were written into the story, as well as the dialogue, sounded intelligent enough to make the characters seem like they knew what they were talking about. As a viewer, I wasn’t confused by these concepts or didn’t feel like homework before watching the movie was required.
As Gene sings the praises of The Fly, he refers to the movie as “a great adventure”. In my experience watching adventure stories unfold on screen, there’s usually a sense of urgency. This urgency can be the reason for reaching a particular destination, exploring a specific location, or finding a person or object. A featured scene from The Fly on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies’ ‘Best of 1986’ episode shows Seth revealing to Ronnie his continual transformation toward becoming a fly. That scene made me believe there would be a race against the clock to either slow down or reverse Seth’s transformation process. Sadly, the script did not provide a race against the clock because the movie lacked a sense of urgency. In fact, The Fly contains a slow-burn story where Seth slowly becomes a fly over the course of most of the film. The 1986 movie is one of those movies where the audience waits for the inevitable to happen. Because the title of the film, The Fly, gives the inevitable away, it makes the film itself predictable. This predictability removes some of the story’s suspense and intrigue.
In the introduction of this review, I stated how The Fly would not be on my list of the top ten best films of 1986. I also said I didn’t think the film would be on Eddie’s top ten best films list either. The reasons are the movie’s lack of urgency and predictability. I could honestly picture Eddie either falling asleep during the movie or leaving the theater during the film. As I said in my review, The Fly is a slow-burn story and its predictability removes some of the story’s suspense and intrigue. But I don’t believe The Fly is a bad movie. The individual and combined performances of Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis made their characters interesting to watch, as well as gave their characters nice on-screen chemistry. Chris and Stephan’s makeup effects effectively elaborated on the horrifying concept of a human becoming a fly. I also liked how the story’s scientific ideas were woven into the script. But despite all that praise, I didn’t like or love The Fly as much as Gene or Roger did.
This review was brought to you by
Sally Silverscreen
18 Cinema Lane 