Le Retour de la mouche

BRETT HALSEY is one of those handsome young actors from the '50s who never quite made it to stardom, and following the trend of other such actors, he fled to Europe where he found a niche for a decade or so in adventure films. He was certainly a competent enough actor and it's a shame Fox never groomed him for major stardom.

Nor did Fox have enough faith in this one to use technicolor (as they did for the original). As sequels go, it's just a fair job on an obviously shoestring budget--and basically, without giving any of the storyline away, it's a story of revenge.

It's all suitably photographed in low key B&W lighting that gives it the proper atmosphere. The performers are capable enough--including Halsey, Vincent Price, John Sutton and Dan Seymour--but their material is scarcely worthy of their combined talents. Fans of this sort of science fiction will no doubt find it has a certain amount of interest.

Anyone who enjoyed "The Fly" will want to see this and probably not be too critical of the shortcomings--although the special effects are not quite as harrowing as they could be.

Summing up: Okay for a viewing, but not likely to be the kind of horror flick anyone will want to revisit.

"The Return of the Fly" takes place many years after "The Fly". The dead scientist from the original film had a son, Philippe, and this young man has grown up and has a fixation of finishing his father's experiments...the same one that turned him into two fly/human hybrids. However, what he doesn't know is that his friend and lab assistant, Alan, is evil and plans on stealing the project. Ultimately, Alan deliberately turns Philippe into the hybrids and shoots Philippe's uncle (Vincent Price) as well!! What a jerk-face! Can they manage to find both fly-brids and reintegrate them back to the creatures they once were? And, can Alan be punished for his infamy?

Rarely would I say this, but this sequel is about equal in quality to the original film. Considering it came out only a year later, this isn't such a huge surprise. It also managed to be creative and original as well as entertaining. Well worth seeing...just like the prior film.

"Return of the Fly" doesn't look as slick as its' predecessor, but it has something going for it that the first didn't: a better story and execution.

The film stars Vincent Price, reprising his role from the original. The basic plot is that the son of the scientist decides to carry on with his old man's experiments. The title pretty much gives away what's going to happen.

Or does it? One of the joys of "Return of the Fly" is that it's not a retread of the original film. It's a continuation that takes many unexpected twists and turns to its' (predictable) finale. The script, by 3 Stooges vet Edward L. Bernds (who also directed)also has large doses of black comedy in addition to the horror and drama. It also gives us characters we care about while the original had a scientific detachment to the characters. The result: a film that somehow manages to top the original.

One negative: if the original was in color, why is this in black and white?

**** out of 4 stars

This is the kind of sequel that can be rather enjoyable as long as you don't hold it up to the standard of the original. It does bear the signs of a movie that was conceived primarily to capitalize on the popularity of its predecessor, and as a result it is hardly as carefully constructed. But as light entertainment, it works well enough.

The first part of the movie connects things up pretty efficiently with the original story, and it's kind of fun to go back to André's wrecked lab, which looks just as it should. Brett Halsey plays André's son Philippe, who is determined to follow in his father's footsteps. While the setup could have led in a number of different directions, the story that actually follows puts an emphasis on action, and it uses the special visual effects rather more freely than in the original "Fly".

From a scientific viewpoint, the whole premise of both movies is far-fetched at best, but in the original, you rarely thought about it because the story was so tightly constructed. In the sequel, the implausibility of the whole thing is harder to ignore. It doesn't detract that much from the entertainment value, but it is a noticeable difference from the first movie.

Except for Vincent Price, the cast is new, but solid. While the production might have a couple of rough edges this time, most of it still looks good enough. Overall, with the right expectations this is a generally entertaining light feature.

While the fly "makeup" is as ridiculous as in the original, it's got nothing on the guinea pig paws. Add in obvious, under-lining music, delayed reactions, a clumsy fly-man, some overacting, action reminiscent of the old "Batman" series, "help me, help me" revisited, some fly-staring, 50s special effects - the "disintegrator-integrator" machine of the old beep-beep type (you can imagine the sounds), not to mention the creatures themselves, is amusing as anything - and some rodent-squelching, and you got yourself laughs aplenty.

The editing is really messy and ugly; there's much dead air in between, even though the film barely runs for 80 minutes! The camera-work is awkward as well.

The cliché-filled dialogue is often amusing, intentionally or not, with some of the highlights being the "if I tell you, it'll haunt you for the rest of your life" exchange, the whole bad guy routine and "the murderous brain of the fly". The what?

I don't think this was done tongue-in-cheek. It's basically the same story as in the original, which makes it seem redundant, but hey, it's mostly entertaining, so I guess that evens it out. Notice how I used the word "mostly".