The Fly

Name: The Fly
Genre: Sci-Fi, Thriller, Horror
Released: August 15, 1986
Duration: 96 min
Rating: 79
Cast: Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum

1986

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 11 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 205 Ratings

See All

8.3

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.3	Your Score
8.3	User Score Universal acclaim based on 205 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Fly

Now Playing: The Fly

Movie Details & Credits

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: August 15, 1986 | R

Starring: Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum

Summary: A scientist (Goldblum) slowly becomes a human sized fly after his teleport device malfunctions.

Director: David Cronenberg

Genre(s): Sci-Fi, Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 96 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Dave Kehr

David Cronenberg's The Fly is that absolute rarity of the '80s: a film that is at once a pure, personal expression and a superbly successful commercial enterprise. [15 Aug 1986]

100

Michael Blowen

The Fly is that rare species of movie - a remake that far surpasses the original and, quite frankly, all expectations. [15 Aug 1986]

100

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

As a remake, The Fly transcends the original, taking it in new directions and exploring its underutilized potential. Read full review

Julie Salamon

This is a first-rate squealer. [07 Aug 1986]

Jay Scott

The Fly is a mass-market, horror- film masterpiece that is also a work of art; it is the very movie the timorous feared "Aliens" would be - a gruesome, disturbing, fundamentally uncompromising shocker that accesses the subconscious. [15 Aug 1986]

Staff (Not Credited)

David Cronenberg's remake of the 1958 horror classic The Fly is not for the squeamish. Casting Jeff Goldblum was a good choice as he brings a quirky, common touch to the spacey scientist role. Read full review

Mick LaSalle

This picture is disgusting. [15 Aug 1986]

SEE ALL 11 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

makemenuconfig

Apr 15, 2012

The atmosphere, the characters, the story, the music, the performances, the special effects. They all combine neatly into this perfect mixture of character story horror drama. Trully a masterpiece.

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

quentntarantado

Jul 15, 2021

The movie is my go-to for romance. It is my favorite Valentine's Day movie. I swoon over their relationship. There are quarrels, there are moments they must separate, but she ultimately shows her devotion to him. He does not deserve her but likely he is not in the right mind (anThe movie is my go-to for romance. It is my favorite Valentine's Day movie. I swoon over their relationship. There are quarrels, there are moments they must separate, but she ultimately shows her devotion to him. He does not deserve her but likely he is not in the right mind (an understatement). Her love is the kind I aspire to achieve.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

Steven1981

Mar 20, 2020

There's a limit even to the human imagination where our greatest creations meet our deepest fears.... You are about to go beyond that limit... David Cronenberg's The Fly stars Jeff Goldbum as Seth Brundle who whilst working on some teleportation experiment accidentally fuses his genes with aThere's a limit even to the human imagination where our greatest creations meet our deepest fears.... You are about to go beyond that limit... David Cronenberg's The Fly stars Jeff Goldbum as Seth Brundle who whilst working on some teleportation experiment accidentally fuses his genes with a fly and two both function on the same genetic level and a fusion takes place. The fly was in the telepod chamber with him but he was unaware of it and reaped the consequences and he starts slowly and gradually mutating but feels strong at first but his ears fall off and loses even his manhood lol. He starts craving more sugar as he gives in to the insect desires and also Geena Davis is sexually involved with him so is stuck in a bit of trouble. Lots of gore and unsettling moments and moments of terror, The Fly is a 1986 horror movie that carries weight and power and suspense and basically stuns the viewer and carries conviction and some romance too. The acting isn't great but justifiable and half decent and sex scenes are inevitable because it has some. Great horror.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

imthenoob

Feb 19, 2014

A tad bit fast paced but it's one of those films that you can't help but love. Goldblum was great and the make up/special effects are awesome and are far better than most special effects done today.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

ahmedaiman1999

Apr 16, 2019

Naked Lunch was the only Cronenberg I've watched before seeing this, and although I can't say that I liked it even a tiny bit; I admired the flashes of creativity I've seen throughout its 115-min run-time of an achingly phlegmatic pacing and self-indulgence. Therefore, I was optimistic thatNaked Lunch was the only Cronenberg I've watched before seeing this, and although I can't say that I liked it even a tiny bit; I admired the flashes of creativity I've seen throughout its 115-min run-time of an achingly phlegmatic pacing and self-indulgence. Therefore, I was optimistic that this renowned indie director's bizarre style could work for me someday. This day may has come, or maybe it's just this movie. Either way, all I can say is that I was definitely right!

First off, Chris Walas's standout, Oscar-winning makeup effects are just superbly sick! The last transformation is case in point, and I really haven't seen anything more impressive than those effects, aside from the equally brilliant practical effects that were used in Carpenter's The Thing.

What's even more awe-inspiring is how well-developed every single character in this movie is. They are constantly developing throughout the film's three acts. And each act adds more layers into them in a most graceful and reasonable way.

I want to confess that I have never considered Jeff Goldblum as an excellent actor. I always see him as one of the most charismatic actors, who play the same character in every film he's in, and I'm totally fine with that. That's because his quirky distinctive style of acting almost always pays off terrifically, so much so that his character steals the show every time. That said, the different phases his character go through in this movie prove that Goldblum's appeal isn't the only thing he has. For my surprise, Jeff Goldblum turned out to be a really talented actor who can flesh-out his character, figuratively and literally, masterfully.

Geena Davis is quite good as Veronica Quaife, whose character arc and the development of her romantic affair with the protagonist near the end reminded me of Belle in Beauty and the Beast a little bit. I think Stathis Borans is an insufferably cartoonish character during the first act. John Getz is not blame at all, as I think he really did a good job. Fortunately, Stathis is also a pretty strongly-developed character that changed a great deal at the third act, and hence became more credible.

I was overwhelmed by different feelings of pity, fear, disgust, and so many others, in the course of the movie's 96-min run-time. However, I think the denouement lacks intensity, since I found the ending predictable, and I saw it coming a bit early.

Other than the issues I've mentioned above, this movie really impressed me with all its creativity and originality. Cronenberg is truly a visionary filmmaker, and I hope I enjoy the rest of his filmography.

(8.5/10)… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

DawdlingPoet

Nov 21, 2021

I think the thing I most like about this particular film is, or are, the themes it covers. Its not greatly original in terms of there being the main character, somewhat of an eccentric scientist with a real enthusiasm for what he does, a strong belief in his research and whom is determinedI think the thing I most like about this particular film is, or are, the themes it covers. Its not greatly original in terms of there being the main character, somewhat of an eccentric scientist with a real enthusiasm for what he does, a strong belief in his research and whom is determined to do all he can in aid of 'the cause' to make his hopes a reality but I thought the characters were well portrayed and it was really quite watchable overall. Although this film does appear fairly dated, given it doesn't really use CGI (the closest to computer generated imagery or aspects to this film being shots of the computer screen that Seth uses to programme the morph experiments), the topic is still relevant and its still an entertaining watch, if not a bit 'icky' at times, of course. I thought it was quite a well made film as the characters are quite well developed and there's some good dialogue. I also liked (for once!) that the plot built up somewhat slowly, on this ocassion as it made it perhaps more poignant when the inevitable transition took place. The fact that only very brief changes start to show through at first perhaps makes the viewer more on edge, not knowing when things are going to suddenly escalate. There is also a plot twist present, which brings even more moral questions with it and which may shock the viewer. On the down side and perhaps this is me being a bit picky but I found myself questioning some things, such as how useful (or revolutionary) his discovery could have actually been, if the distance objects or beings were able to travel between were so short, though I suppose its all about understanding the basics and proving such teleportation can be done at all. As far as the narrative is concerned, aspects of it somehow reminded me of King Kong, a somewhat classic tale with equal parts love and fear, plus being set in New York, I suppose. Why do such stories tend to happen in New York? answers on a postcard please(!).

I also couldn't help but wonder why Veronica seemed fine to hug Seth, having taken some moments to get to terms with his deformities - she's shown to be quite fearful when she realises whats happened and having to take a hard decision later on but yet after seemingly reluctantly re-visiting him and physically being shocked and appalled at what she's faced with, including the fact that his body is, by one point, almost falling apart, she seems to have little hesitation in physically embracing him - I suppose some might argue thats admirable, to see past the obvious physical repulsions and to still presumably feel compassion for the human element thats trapped behind it all but a part of me couldn't help but think if there was much realism to this, how likely is it that she would do that, really? is there maybe an element of her being too much of a typical caring female lead character perhaps? that might be a bit harsh of me to say that and I certainly did think this was quite an engrossing film and a good film for the most part but those would be the main criticisms that come to mind, personally.

For those of you who regularly read my reviews, you'll be unsurprised to read that I liked this film for the shortish running time of just over an hour and a half. Having checked that before playing it, I also remember realising that the plot seemed to be moving fairly slowly to start with and I wondered how it would manage to all play out and for the story to be resolved in the time remaining - the answer is, not everything gets entirely addressed. The ending seemed quite abrupt and leaves you wondering about what happened afterwards, although its quite good in as much as the sudden ending perhaps makes it a bit more hard hitting and memorable.

I think it would likely depend on what your looking for, what type of film you presume this to be etc., as to whether you'd especially enjoy it, I imagine. If your looking for purely a scary horror film then this is perhaps not the best for that, as while it is rather 'gross out' at times, its not a pure 'scare-fest', indeed I didn't find it too scary, from the point of view of physically jumping or feeling compelled to look away - well I did once but only the once, if I remember right(!). Also (and finally), a slightly silly comparison I could make, that for some reason came to mind, was that this is perhaps somewhat like an adult, gory version of The Wuzzles! (for those who aren't familiar with The Wuzzles (probably most people), that was a Disney cartoon show consisting of various characters which were all hybrid animals, though they were born that way and quite happy in being what they were lol (yes I did warn it was a silly comparison but there you go!).

This is quite a thought provoking watch, with an interesting main character and one or two good plot twists.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

KenR

Aug 21, 2020

Have to admit not liking this version of The Fly, it relied too much on the gore aspects of the story. But I do recall a friend lending me a B/W copy of the 1958 version of this infamous movie way back. I also seem to recall the earlier version may have been banned in Australia for someHave to admit not liking this version of The Fly, it relied too much on the gore aspects of the story. But I do recall a friend lending me a B/W copy of the 1958 version of this infamous movie way back. I also seem to recall the earlier version may have been banned in Australia for some horror elements? (eloquently done by today’s standards). So when I saw an ad for a re-mastered DVD in vivid color, it just had to be ordered. I suppose it had to be expected that a story like this, made in 1958, might just not hold up too well over the years. This outrageous story was given a lush 20th Century Fox production (complete with a ballet scene!) and also made a lot of money – it had an interesting original story and a neat screenplay by Australian novelist and filmmaker James Clavell - but our understanding of the science and movie making styles have simply changed so much! What was left of the memory of its story has sadly become somewhat laughable. The print transfer to DVD is nothing short of a visual delight, with lovely color, clear images and sound, but oh the acting (except Herbert Marshall) and situations now probably make it a must for the send-up buffs. Patricia Owens is pretty but no great actress and the eloquently voiced Vincent Price looks uncomfortable and hammy in his co-star part. The disc has been treated to a commentary which must rate as one of the worst of its type. Perhaps some things are best left to memory... BUT have to admit, the final scene of the fly in the garden still has a chilling impact! View either version at your own peril.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

SEE ALL 33 REVIEWS