While 1989's The Fly II remains one of filmdom's most universally-despised sequels, I know of no such animosity toward an earlier sequel to 1958’s original Fly, 1959's Return of the Fly. I don't know if that's because more people like this film than enjoyed the 1989 flick or if it's just due to the fact fewer people are aware of the earlier piece.

In any case, while I found Return to be decidedly less interesting than its predecessor, the contest is a lot closer than the match between the 1980s pictures. In that case, the sequel is radically less compelling than the original, but the discrepancy between the 1958 and 1959 flicks is much smaller.

Actually, Return bears a fair number of similarities to The Fly II. As with that movie, this one features the son of our original man-fly as the protagonist.

The difference is that the later picture's grows up as a mutant, whereas this one's Philippe - seen as a 10-year-old boy in the first movie - gets deformed the same way as dear old Dad.

There's a much greater lapse in time between the events of the first and second films in each pair also. The Fly II starts only a few months after the previous movie's proceedings, although it ends up about five years in the future.

Return, however, jumps ahead roughly 16 years, a figure I base this on the differences in age between Charles Herbert, who played young Philippe in The Fly and Brett Halsey, who takes on the adult role in the sequel.

This fast-forward isn't explained in the film. We're left to ponder it on our own and think of how much the world of 1974 looks like the environment of 1959.

It also seems remarkable how little Philippe's Uncle Francois (again played by Vincent Price) has aged in the interim. Why, he looks just like he did when the boy was only ten!

Okay, I recognize that it's probably a waste of time to nit-pick these kinds of gaffes in a movie of this sort, but I think some of these goofs seem awfully sloppy. At least the 1986 and 1989 films took some pains to deal with the issue of contamination during transportation, as all runs through the cycle were done nude in those flicks.

However, in the 1950s versions, everyone who goes through the ringer does so clothed, which makes me wonder why they didn't turn into half-man/half-slacks creatures. Geez, in the first movie, André actually dispatches a cat while she drinks milk from a bowl.

How bizarre could that combination have been? Still, both 1950s films have their plot faults, so I won't penalize either in regard to the other.

Return is less interesting than the original mainly because - as with the 1989 film - it becomes little more than a typical monster movie, though Return attempts a little psychological depth.. Philippe remains deathly afraid of flies - something that's used against him by a baddie - but these nuances feel like little more than cheap devices to allow lightning to strike twice.

After all, what were the chances the son would happen to run himself through the transporter as another fly sneaks into the machine? Pretty slim, I'd think, so the story needed to find a way to force a bug in there with him, and it does so, but in a pretty silly way.

Unlike The Fly II, Return of the Fly isn't a terrible movie, but it's not a very good one either. As it stands, Return presents a dopey but mildly entertaining take on the subject matter.

Sharpness looked mostly detailed and crisp. A few minor instances of softness occurred, but the movie usually seemed accurate and well-defined.

I saw no evidence of jagged edges or moiré effects but edge haloes created some minor distractions. Print flaws also were minor for such an old movie, as I witnessed the occasional speck but nothing else intrusive interfered.

The film’s low budget left it as a black and white production. I won’t complain too much because the shading looked solid for the most part.

The contrast presented a nicely gray image that seemed clear and distinct. Black levels looked dark and deep but never were excessively thick, and shadow detail appeared appropriately heavy but not overly opaque.

Occasional shots seemed a bit too bright, but those didn’t dominate. The smattering of issues made this a “B” image but it still satisfied.

Though fairly age-appropriate, I felt less delighted by the erratic DTS-HD MA monaural soundtrack for Return of the Fly. Speech remained intelligible at all times, but the lines tended to seem a little brittle and thin, and some edginess occurred.

Music was similarly lightweight, as the score showed little range, so those elements tended to be lackluster. Finally, effects were generally clean, but they also suffered from the absence of dynamics, and some harshness occurred at times. There just wasn’t much punch to be found in this mediocre mix.

How did the 2019 Blu-ray compare to the original BD from 2014? Visuals seemed very similar and probably identical.

Even though Shout produced both discs, the 2019 edition dropped the stereo mix from the 2014 BD. I didn’t mind, however, as the latter’s track seemed like “broad mono” anyway.

Both came with similar sonics. Even with the change from stereo to mono, neither Blu-ray seemed better than its predecessor.

The 2019 Shout release mixes old and new components, and we find three separate audio commentaries. A carryover from the prior release, the first comes from actor Brett Halsey and film historian David Del Valle, both of whom sit together for this running, screen-specific look at cast and crew, story/character areas, aspects of the production and other movie-related thoughts.

As an examination of Return’s production, this track seems like a bit of a dud. Halsey admits he doesn’t remember much about the shoot, and the participants tend to focus on connected topics more than Return specifics.

This means we get many observations about the rest of Halsey’s career and those of others involved in Return. The chat seems likeable enough but it doesn’t pack as much film-specific info as I’d like.

The other two commentaries come exclusive to this 2019 BD, and we get a track with actor David Frankham and moderator Jonathan David Dixon. Both sit together for a running, screening-specific discussion of Frankham’s life, career and experiences during the production as well as other facts about the flick.

93 when he recorded this track – and still kicking at 99 in the spring of 2025 – Frankham provides a spry and bubbly presence who offers plenty of good memories of his work. Dixon tosses in useful material as well and this becomes a solid discussion.

For the final commentary, we hear from film historian Tom Weaver. In his running, screen-specific chat, Weaver examines genre domains, story/characters, production details, genre elements, the movie’s reception and his thoughts about it.

Weaver also uses voice actors to recreate some of his old interviews. They repeat the remarks from director Edward Bernds and Curse of the Fly story writer Harry Spalding.

A veteran of the format, Weaver brings his usual irreverent attitude toward the discussion. He mixes lots of solid film details with snark to turn this into a rollicking chat.

In addition to the trailer and a TV spot, the set finishes with a still gallery. It presents 18 advertisements and publicity shots. It becomes a short but good collection.

At no point can I call Return of the Fly a terrible film, as it offers some cheesy entertainment. However, it’s not a good film either. The Blu-ray presents good visuals as well as passable audio and a nice collection of commentaries. We find a quality release for a meh film.

Note that this version of Return of the Fly comes only as part of a five-film “Fly Collection”. It also includes the 1958 movie, a 1965 sequel, the 1986 Fly remake and that movie’s 1989 sequel.