Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 407587" data-attributes="member: 8">THE FLY (1986)[ATTACH=full]54174[/ATTACH]So...this is basically a story about three characters: super scientist Seth Brundle, ambitious journalist Ronnie and her publisher/ex-boyfriend Stathis Borans (at least it&#039;s a fabulous name).The story has little introduction (you wanna see my teleporter?) and yet it all unfolds very slowly. That&#039;s a good opportunity to create characters and the world they live in - but that doesn&#039;t happen.All three actors sleepwalk through the script although Stathis becomes a different character in every scene he&#039;s in.Sometimes the ruthless editor, sometimes the hilarious stalker and sometimes a knight in shining armour, all we know is that they&#039;re played by the same actor.The only reason I continued to (re)watch was because of a morbid fascination to see how&nbsp; bad it would get.Science fiction doesn&#039;t have to be believable but Brundle&#039;s computer that controls the telepods reminded me of the Batcomputer.For something that is supposed to be such a big discovery it all looks terribly stupid and boring.I wonder if Geena Davis&#039; scenes were filmed seperately and later edited into the film because none of her actions or reactions make any sense.Seth Brundle&#039;s character gets a boost when he starts to transform, first as a superman and then later as a monster.There&#039;s a lot of goo and gore but because it&#039;s so obviously done to repulse the audience it becomes unintentionally funny. However, this is when the film becomes a lot better because Seth hasn&#039;t only become a fly, he has also developed a sense of humour which makes him much more characteristic.I find the last scene after the accidental SethFly/telepod hybrid surprisingly gloomy and endearing.I think it&#039;s a very problematic and uninspired film with only a few good bits in it, exactly how I feel about most David Cronenberg films (except for THE BROOD which I really like).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 407587, member: 8"] THE FLY (1986) [ATTACH type="full"]54174[/ATTACH] So...this is basically a story about three characters: super scientist Seth Brundle, ambitious journalist Ronnie and her publisher/ex-boyfriend Stathis Borans (at least it's a fabulous name). The story has little introduction (you wanna see my teleporter?) and yet it all unfolds very slowly. That's a good opportunity to create characters and the world they live in - but that doesn't happen. All three actors sleepwalk through the script although Stathis becomes a different character in every scene he's in. Sometimes the ruthless editor, sometimes the hilarious stalker and sometimes a knight in shining armour, all we know is that they're played by the same actor. The only reason I continued to (re)watch was because of a morbid fascination to see [I]how[/I] bad it would get. Science fiction doesn't have to be believable but Brundle's computer that controls the telepods reminded me of the Batcomputer. For something that is supposed to be such a big discovery it all looks terribly stupid and boring. I wonder if Geena Davis' scenes were filmed seperately and later edited into the film because none of her actions or reactions make any sense. Seth Brundle's character gets a boost when he starts to transform, first as a superman and then later as a monster. There's a lot of goo and gore but because it's so obviously done to repulse the audience it becomes unintentionally funny. However, this is when the film becomes a lot better because Seth hasn't only become a fly, he has also developed a sense of humour which makes him much more characteristic. I find the last scene after the accidental SethFly/telepod hybrid surprisingly gloomy and endearing. I think it's a very problematic and uninspired film with only a few good bits in it, exactly how I feel about most David Cronenberg films (except for THE BROOD which I really like). [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?