Critics’ reviews

The Fly (1986)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 73: 6 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of The Fly

73
Positive
6
Mixed
0
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Cronenberg’s horror film, finding an affecting love story within its account of physical decay. Praise centres on Jeff Goldblum’s sensitive, sometimes funny performance and his chemistry with Geena Davis, which give the bodily transformation emotional weight. The effects earn admiration for making deterioration disturbing, while the concentrated action keeps attention on the characters. Across the positive reviews, disease, ageing and the loss of self matter as much as the shocks.

The principal division concerns how much gore that emotional core can withstand. Even favourable reviews warn that the physical detail may overwhelm squeamish viewers, but generally see it as essential to the film’s impact. The New York Times is the clear dissenter, arguing that the goriness distracts from and eventually damages an ambitious film, despite Goldblum’s heart and humour. The positive assessments cluster fairly closely; that objection accounts for the sharpest split.

Slant Magazine
20 October 2005 · Eric Henderson
85*

The critic praises Cronenberg’s focus on the scientist’s slow physical transformation and decomposition as a visceral exploration of body horror. It singles out the film’s resonance with AIDS-era anxieties and its operatic portrayal of decay and sexuality.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

Cronenberg remakes the 1958 chiller to explore his signature fears of ageing, disease, deformity and the beast within, delivering raw phobias with poignant wit and repulsive entertainment. Goldblum's sensitive performance softens the grisly effects, though the gore may still overwhelm some viewers.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
19 October 2005 · Scott Tobias
80*

The critic lauds the film’s explicit onscreen violence and Goldblum’s performance as it depicts a man’s gradual loss of self. It highlights the emotional core as a meditation on death and deterioration rather than mere shocks.

Read the full review →
Time Out
9 July 2014 · TCh
80*

The critic sees the film as being about fusion—of man and insect, and of the emotional and physical bond between man and woman—rather than teleportation or hubris. The playful chemistry between Goldblum and Davis makes the gothic horror both heartbreaking and stomach-churning, with still-staggering special effects.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
29 September 1986 · Pauline Kael
75*

The critic praises Goldblum's performance and the graceful romantic teamwork with Geena Davis, noting that Cronenberg narrows the focus to one man's decaying body in a determinedly concentrated film that holds attention.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1985 · Variety Staff
70*

Cronenberg's remake is not for the squeamish but benefits from Goldblum's quirky touch as the scientist and effective containment of the action in a limited space with a small cast.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
15 August 1986 · Caryn James
40*

The critic finds the all-out goriness distracting and ultimately destructive to the film, though Jeff Goldblum's fly-man has heart and humor and Cronenberg's vision is ambitious.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Adam Smith

Cronenberg's triumphant reworking of the 1958 film remains his most accessible, meshing his obsessions with disease, decay and metamorphosis into an exuberantly handled, shamelessly melodramatic love story. It is his most triumphant and accessible film to date.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
10 April 2008 · 4 out of 5 · Mark Pickavance

The critic calls Cronenberg’s remake an eighties horror classic superior to the original, highlighting its doomed love story and Goldblum’s standout performance as the scientist fused with a fly. The emotional depth, believable effects, and strong acting from Goldblum and Davis make it a superb, affecting film.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate