Paul Magne Haakonsen If you haven't seen the original Cronenberg "The Fly", then chances are that you might actually find some enjoyment in "The Fly II", if you take it as a stand-alone movie.However, for us that have watched and enjoy the 1986 movie, then "The Fly II" is nothing more than a shameless attempt to cash in on the success of the first movie. And it is so blatantly a copy of the first movie, that they hardly even bothered with changing anything in the storyline."The Fly II" follows the exact same formula that the first movie did; except this time it is the son of Seth Brundle, who has inherited the fly DNA cells from his father. But other than that, it is essentially just a scene by scene copy of the first movie. And it is this that make the movie such a drag to sit through.On the plus side, then "The Fly II" does have some very young and inexperienced Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga in the lead roles, which makes it somewhat bearable to sit through this rip-off of the first movie.The effects in "The Fly II", however, definitely had a notch upward compared to the first movie. Which is a natural evolution, of course, since there were three years in between the movies. And the special effects team in "The Fly II" do deserve most of the credit for making the movie watchable."The Fly II" is not a movie that was necessary to add to the former movie, because it offers nothing to the particular story and universe established here, aside from it being the son of Seth Brundle this time around.All in all, a less than mediocre movie that is salvaged primarily because of good effects.

Leofwine_draca Gory, noisy and gratuitous are three words that could easily be used to describe THE FLY II. Actually the fifth "fly" movie to be released (after the initial 1958 movie, its two sequels, and the 1986 Jeff Goldblum hit), this is also clichéd, nonsensical, and quite frequently boring on occasion. The main problem is the story, or rather the lack of it, which meanders aimlessly for about seventy minutes before the film becomes a mildly entertaining monster-on-the-loose thriller, with the emphasis on special effects over plot twists. Fans of horror as entertainment should look elsewhere, as this is a dark and dismal outing with a mean-spirited edge which saps life from those who watch it. Certain sequences involving a cute dog being transformed into a pathetic mutation are pretty depressing to watch, although on the other hand they are indeed the most horrific thing in the film.Eric Stoltz plays Goldblum's son, Martin, an extremely intelligent youth. Stoltz is actually very good in this picture and actually makes it better than it ought to be. Daphne Zuniga (unrecognisable from her first role in PRANKS) is wasted though in a nothing role as Stoltz's girlfriend; her character is bland, her acting wooden, and she just stands around looking pretty rather than do anything else. Lee Richardson, the older 'baddie' businessman (think Joss Ackland-type) is too nice to be truly evil as the baddie, however. The film's pedestrian direction is by Chris Walas, who did the special effects in THE FLY. He really shoulda stuck to what he does best, namely making gory effects.Gore fans might enjoy this one thanks to the numerous scenes of violence, cruelty and strange slimy/disgusting creations. Opening with a disturbingly squishy birth sequence, we're treated to needles breaking off in arms (certainly the most cringe-worthy moment), bodies disintegrating and one outrageous shot of a guy's head getting squished under a lift. The 'vomit' effects are back at the end, too, resulting in the film's most gory moment of a guy getting his face eaten away. Like we really needed to see that in that kind of detail. The final monster effects are pretty good, with fine animation, but the monster itself could have been designed better. In the end this is a pointless kind of movie, with a few sick moments to recommend it for those who like that kind of thing, but otherwise a watch-once sort of flick that lacks the power and originality of the first.

Fluke_Skywalker Where David Cronenberg's original 'The Fly' rose above its B-movie premise and roots to become an operatic tragedy, the sequel never even aspires, much less reaches, those lofty heights. Instead it mucks about in the genre gutter, happy to be nothing more than a B-grade monster movie.The first two acts move at a snail's pace, with nothing compelling happening and no clear sense of urgency. Things come alive a bit in the final half hour, but it's all just standard monster/horror genre stuff.The make-up F/X are pretty good, and Lee Richardson eschews hamming it up as the would be villain, but 'The Fly II' is otherwise a very big step back from the original.

gwnightscream Eric Stoltz, Daphne Zuniga, Lee Richardson and John Getz star in this 1989 sci-fi/horror sequel. This begins with woman, Veronica (Originally played by Geena Davis) dying after giving birth to a baby. Soon, we meet the child, Martin Brundle (Stoltz) who is not only very intelligent, but ages rapidly because of his late, father, Seth (Jeff Goldblum). Richardson plays businessman, Anton Bartok who adopts Martin and is head of company, Bartok Industries. Soon, Martin learns about his father, his research and that he's inherited his insect genes trying to find a cure. He also discovers that Bartok is corrupt and using him to continue his father's work. Zuniga (Spaceballs) plays Martin's love-interest, Beth Logan and Getz returns briefly as Stathis Borans who is now crippled. This isn't a bad sequel that's underrated, Stoltz is great in it, Chris Walas' make-up effects are grotesquely good and Christopher Young's score is great as usual. I recommend this.