After two films in two years, the original Fly series took a break. The first flick became a hit in 1958, and its initial sequel zipped onto screens only a year later.

That might’ve been the end of things. However, the series got a revival in 1965 with The Curse of the Fly.

Curse starts with a sequence that shows an underwear clad woman named Pat (Carole Gray) as she escapes from a mental hospital. Martin Delambre (George Baker) picks her up and gives her an assist as she tries to go to Montreal. He helps her get on her feet as he pursues the family business: teleportation experiments.

The first flick’s Andre was the first Delambre to work on this topic – with tragic results. We’re told that Martin is part of the third generation to pursue this line of technology, but lots of problems remain. Despite all the work to be done, Martin finds time for love, so he and Pat decide to get married.

That’s when we learn about Pat’s mental problems and the breakdown that landed her in the mental hospital. We also discover Martin’s own secrets, as he deals with some debilitating physical issues he doesn’t share with Pat. The movie follows their relationship, his experiments, and the whole screwy Delambre clan.

Here’s what you won’t find in Curse: a dude who turns into a fly-like monster. The film takes the “curse” in its title seriously, as it concentrates on the negative ramifications of the Delambre family’s teleportation obsession. It looks at the flaws in the experiments and related complications.

Because of his, Curse feels more like a Gothic horror flick than another Fly effort. It focuses on the creepy family of freaks and doesn’t really connect all that much to the original movies. It uses those as a loose framework and little else.

The premise boasts potential, but Curse fails to make much of the possibilities. That’s a shame, especially because it starts well.

The title sequence in which Pat escapes possesses an intriguing dreamlike quality that allows it to become captivating. This manages to draw us into the flick with its promise of something different.

Unfortunately, it squanders that potential very quickly. The Martin/Pat relationship stretches credulity, partly because Martin doesn’t seem all that taken aback to find a hot chick in her undies running around the streets.

Hey, I dream of such an encounter, but I still think I’d be a little more surprised if it happened. Martin doesn’t question it, probably because it fits the necessary plot developments.

Indeed, Pat exists solely to give the audience a representative. We can’t identify with the nutty Delambres, so we need a proxy to witness the weirdness at the Delambre home.

Does Pat’s mental illness ever make a difference in the story? Not that I can discern, as it’s a twist to bring the authorities to the Delambre manse, but otherwise it’s irrelevant to the story.

Even for an 86-minute movie, Curse feels padded. Take the scene in which Tai walks to the lab. This goes on forever and serves little purpose.

Perhaps the filmmakers felt a need to establish the house’s size and its geography, but I don’t think this was necessary. Instead, this and other scenes just fill space to pad out the flick to feature length.

I must admit the movie’s continuity goofs bug me. Inspector Charas worked on the death of Andre back in the first film, an event that would’ve been a good 40 or 50 years before this flick’s action.

Curse does age Charas – unlike the Vincent Price character in Return - but it’s not enough. He was no spring chicken in the first movie, so he should’ve died well before this tale.

As with Return, the absolute failure of the filmmakers to attempt a futuristic society distracts. Return should take place in the 1970s or 1980s.

This puts Curse somewhere in the 1990s or maybe even the 21st century. Funny how they both look just like the eras in which they were shot!

Curse isn’t a terrible movie, and it’s probably more interesting than a third chapter in a series like this should be. That said, it offers only minor pleasures at most. I don’t think that calling a film “not terrible” is much praise, and that’s the best I can do for Curse.

The Curse of the Fly appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. Despite some flaws, the transfer usually satisfied.

Sharpness could be a little erratic. Though much of the movie displayed good clarity and delineation, some shots tended to be a bit soft. Still, the majority of the film demonstrated reasonably positive delineation.

No issues with jagged edges or moiré effects emerged. The flick came with a decent layer of grain, but I saw mild edge haloes at times.

The black and white imagery looked nice, so contrast seemed pleasing, as the movie exhibited a fine silvery tone. Blacks were dark and dense, while shadows looked clear and smooth.

Minor print damage cropped up, as I saw a few lines and specks, but these didn’t become a persistent issue. The source defects and minor softness knocked my grade down to a “B-“, but the transfer still pleased.

As for the DTS-HD MA monaural sound of Curse of the Fly, it provided less obvious pleasures. Speech tended to be rather sibilant and edgy, though the lines remained perfectly intelligible.

Music sounded a bit shrill and thin, while effects fell into the same lines. Those elements lacked much range or clarity. Though I didn’t think the audio was poor, it was too flawed to merit a grade above a “C-“ for something from 1965.

How did the Blu-ray compare to the DVD from 2007? Audio quality felt similar, though the BD dropped the unconvincing stereo of the DVD.

Visuals offered improvements, as the Blu-ray seemed better defined, richer and cleaner than the DVD. Even with its issues, the BD acted as a step up over the dated DVD.

While no extras appeared on the old DVD, the Shout Blu-ray comes with a mix, and we find an audio commentary from author Steve Haberman and film historian Constantine Nasr. Both sit together for their running, screen-specific discussion of story/characters, cast and crew, genre and the franchise, production domains and their thoughts about the film.

Early in the chat, Haberman and Nasr note that not much documentation of the Curse shoot exists. This limits the facts they can supply.

As such, the usually fascinating Nasr and Haberman don’t live up to their usual high standards. Still, they offer enough useful material to turn this into a reasonably informative chat.

Two video programs ensue, and we get an interview with actor Mary Manson. This reel spans seven minutes, 38 seconds.

Manson tells us how she got her role, her performance and character, and experiences during the shoot as well as other aspects of her career. This becomes a short but worthwhile piece.

We also locate an interview with continuity person Renee Glynne. Her chat goes for five minutes, 22 seconds.

Glynne notes at the start that she barely remembers the fact she even worked on Curse, so this limits the usefulness of her comments. She does give us some decent notes on the British film industry in the mid-1960s and her experiences, but we don’t get much about Curse itself.

In addition to the film’s trailer and a TV spot, we conclude with a Still Gallery that displays 27 images. These mix movie shots and ads to become a passable collection.

While I don’t think The Curse of the Fly is a truly bad movie, I can’t claim to find much to like about it. The premise boasts some potential but the filmmakers don’t do much with it. Instead, the flick becomes a semi-cheesy tale about freaks. The Blu-ray offers inconsistent but generally positive visuals along with iffy audio and a mix of bonus features. This isn’t a memorable movie.

Note that this version of Curse of the Fly comes only as part of a five-film “Fly Collection”. It also includes the movie’s two prior chapters, the 1986 Fly remake and that flick’s 1989 sequel.