AmateurMovieReviews.com

The Story: A scientist and the woman who loves him battle with the horrifying results of a teleportation experiment that has turned tragically wrong.

Remakes! There is a special circle of Hell reserved for dirty politicians, crooked lawyers, spiteful X's, and whoever the bastard is who first said "Hey, that's a good movie. Let's make it all over again and trash its memory forever." Remakes are always lurching, sanitized, lowest common denominator, trend-of-the-month monstrosities with no personality of their own except for the suspicious odors of formaldehyde and brimstone wafting through the theater.

And all generalizations are false. The Fly is a monstrously well-made and powerful film, while its predecessor is a competent but dull B movie. Sometimes bad guys do good things despite their worst intentions. This is like a deal with the Devil at the crossroads, except Old Scratch forgot to collect on his part of the deal.

At the beginning of The Fly, research scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) invites Veronica (Geena Davis), a reporter, back to his lab to see his teleportation device. Just like in the original film, the scientist has two telepods set up in his Frankenstein-like lair. Put an object in one, flash some special effects hither and yon and the object appears in the other pod. Well, the setup has a few bugs to work out yet - living creatures don't come through it looking so healthy. As Seth and Veronica's relationship develops into love, Brundle fiddles with this and that until he's confident (or drunk) enough to try the ultimate experiment - to teleport himself from one pod to the other.

Hey, it worked! But of course, we know that there had to be a fly in there somewhere or we would be stuck with a romantic comedy. Why didn't he change like in the original movie? Oh yeah... because this is the 1980s and we can make this a very gruesome movie with more psychological depth. This time, the change is disturbingly gradual. As Brundle's body begins to gradually discard human parts (check out the collection in the medicine cabinet!) and gain fly parts, his mind undergoes a gradual transformation as well. As the film progresses, and we come to feel more and more pity for the man and the woman who loves him, we also become more and more horrified as his looks and behavior take on inhuman and animalistic, vicious tendencies...

Okay, I'll stop there. Are there many surprises from this point on? From a plot standpoint, not really. Some of the particulars of Seth's mental and physical degradation are shocking, but all is built from a logical foundation once you accept the basic premise. I can't describe any particulars for you, since it would ruin shocks and surprises for the uninitiated and those who have seen the movie know that descriptions wouldn't do it justice anyway. Suffice it to say that The Fly is one of the most surprising, scary big-budget horror movies of the 1980s and is well deserving of the acclaim that it collected - not to mention the Academy Award for the makeup.

Well, you already can tell that I consider this a good movie. The performances on the whole range from sturdy and workmanlike to inspired, though Goldblum's performance could have used a lot more subtlety in my view. The pathos that comes through is due more to the horror of the situation itself and the destruction that is wrought upon those around him than from anything Goldblum does with his role. I suspect he was picked more for his natural insectoid looks than for his acting skills and would have rather seen a more restrained and dignified actor in the role (supporting actor John Getz, perhaps?). Davis's role, on the other hand, is justifiably star making in its honesty and sympathy.

In contrast to the effect of the original film, we are treated to a much more intelligent and complex array of characters and situations, and Cronenberg's usual allegories and personal obsessions are fortunately held in abeyance. There are a few "deep," "metaphorical" elements here and there, and a few moments that are momentarily silly and destructive to the mood (and a ridiculous cheat dream sequence), but all in all this is a remarkably restrained and straightforward film for Cronenberg. Someone somewhere must have shackled the poor man and kept him from his usual creative frenzy, and in this rare instance I approve.

In the end, this movie breaks all of the rules - it's a remake, it's a modern special-effects blockbuster, it's a movie made by an idiosyncratic artist hampered by commercial restraints, and it's a thinking person's gore movie. Plus... it's a David Cronenberg movie with normal, sympathetic characters and no overt obsessive navel gazing. All in all, Cronenberg's "Fly" is that rarity of rarities: A deal with the devil that turns out to be a good deal for all concerned.

Except of course for Seth Brundle and the people in his life.