OutRun2

I gotta say, I've always been a fan of the '86 version of The Fly...but I just saw the original yesterday from beginning to end (always saw bits & pieces) and I gotta say I am shocked(pun definitely intended) at how disturbing and creepy it was. Don't get my wrong, they are both good in their own way, but the original is the ORIGINAL! The idea is there & the creepiness of his hidden face is an attention grabber. The ending was also extremely haunting. And don't even get me started on how much better the special effects are in the original over the remake.

IMO, the remake took a more intelligent view on the transportation device and how it would work in modern times and the ugly results of the failed tests. But Cronenberg's version (much like John Carpnter's version of 'The Thing") relies too much on sickening the sudience that it falls flat. Good acting in both and they are very well directed too, but too sick for me to enjoy either.

And while a bit dated, and formulaic, The Fly 1958's ending is still so completely over the top, and will live forever, while the the 1986 version will be shelved.

I liked the 1986 version, it updated the story quite nicely, and was very well casted, acted, and done. But it was a gore-fest at its core, and relied on the R-rating for the bucks.

Personally, I like horror Sci-fi that sticks to my ribs, comes back to haunt me. the 1986 version did none of these things.

Lt Ripley

I agree that the original The Fly is better, but since you mentioned it in your post, Carpenter's The Thing is MUCH better than the original.

JayDerek

i can agree w/ the argument that the '58 Fly is better, but I think it's a close one though. The '86 Fly was very well done.

I'd have to go w/ Carpenter's The Thing though...leaps and bounds above the original. Sure, it's gory, but the story is fantastic...the movie's not all about gore...

zombiezilla

I concur, Lt. & JD, on both counts.