Nicolas Cage in 1986 Fly Remake?

[bassman]

The 86 Fly topped the original though I know what you're saying....Cronenberg's version is the sh*t, but you really can't compare it to the original. They're both really different films if you think about it. There's greatness in both. As far as the original: "Help me! Help meeeeee!" Creepy.... Oh, and two words. Vincent. Price.

[coma]

I know what you're saying....Cronenberg's version is the sh*t, but you really can't compare it to the original. They're both really different films if you think about it. There's greatness in both. As far as the original: "Help me! Help meeeeee!" Creepy.... Oh, and two words. Vincent. Price. Vincent Price was great. I love Last Man On Earth. The original Fly was great. Scared the hell out of me as a kid. The remake took alot of the great things about it and added a lot of the benefits of modern film and loosened censorship .Thats what a remake should be.

[bassman]

Vincent Price was great. I love Last Man On Earth. The original Fly was great. Scared the hell out of me as a kid. The remake took alot of the great things about it and added a lot of the benefits of modern film and loosened censorship .Thats what a remake should be. Yeah, I think the main differences between the two are that the original had to rely more on psychological horror because they didn't do the whole metamorphesis thing and it was a quick change for Andre. The remake has that same psychological horror, but it also has the benefit of the slow, disqusting changes that the audience witnesses happening to Brundle. I consider the remake more of a commentary on AIDS rather than the "Laboratory mishap" of the original. Plus, the physical effects in the remake are awesome. The rotating room thing, the monkey , the attack on Stathis, the final transformation. All very good stuff. This new one is probably going to try and up the gross factor to ridiculous levels(the changes that Brundle has in the first remake seemed believable and not TOO over-the-top), throw in the typical "something runs across the screen but isn't a threat", and basically do the exact same thing as all these other "horror" films out there today. Is the 1986 remake even dated? Excluding a few hair-do's here and there, Cronenberg's film is still great by today's standards.

[coma]

Is the 1986 remake even dated? Excluding a few hair-do's here and there, Cronenberg's film is still great by today's standards. No its not dated. There is no cluncky "they only talk like that in movies" dialouge. And you could never top the FX. They are perfect. The Brundlefly eating scene is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. Youre whole prediction is probably totally on the money. The things and the fly were 2 50s movies that were much loved by fans and the respective directors. That is not at all the case with all the recent remakes. It seems like they make everything for ignorant young teenagers who don't know **** about what came before their brief lifetimes. I think marketing people must be exterminated with extreme predjudice

[capncnut]

The 86 Fly topped the original though Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays. give me a break hollywood, and nic cage? At least it saves on make up fx costs.

[bassman]

Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays. I could see the original flick being laughable, but you think the 1986 remake is?.....

[coma]

Yeah totally but both versions are completely laughable nowdays. = I disagree completely, ecspecially the 86 one. I just saw it again a month or two ago and I was surprised how nasty it was.

[Danny]

i gotta disagree to, though wasnt the 86 version really about terminal illnes?, that was the vibe i got from it, it had a kind of integrity you wont find in a revamp of it, i mean whats next, a remake of the thing (the kurt russel one), screw cgi those effects were the ****!

[capncnut]

When I say laughable, I do not mean it in a disrespectful sense where I don't take the movie seriously because I think it's awesome. I just thought the way Jeff Goldblum behaves during the Fly transformation is hilarious. Probably intentionally. It just adds to the overall laughability of the movie. I would agree that the tone is pretty dark and gloomy though. I saw Fly II not so long ago and was howling with laughter when the Stoltzster put his dog down.

[LouCipherr]

Holy sh*t, I disagree too. The 86 remake was fantastic, and still to this day creeps me the hell out. As someone mentioned, the 'eating' scene with Brundle-fly was one of the nastiest, scariest things I ever saw as a kid. It was just like a severe car accident: gross, nasty, and not something you want to see, but you just... can't.. take.. your.. eyes.. off... of.. it. Not to mention, I really like Jeff Goldblum's acting. My favorite movie with him in it was "Framed" - but I like almost all of his movies. LC

[coma]

When I say laughable, I do not mean it in a disrespectful sense where I don't take the movie seriously because I think it's awesome. I just thought the way Jeff Goldblum behaves during the Fly transformation is hilarious. Probably intentionally. It just adds to the overall laughability of the movie. I would agree that the tone is pretty dark and gloomy though. I saw Fly II not so long ago and was howling with laughter when the Stoltzster put his dog down. Yeah, Laughable is like "Bush's mangling of the language is Laughable" while Dave Chapelle is hilarious. It was intentionally funny. I think without humor it would have been almost unwatchable. It was just too beiievable.