User reviews

Seth Brundle's offspring, Martin, is born and begins his life in a controlled lab environment at Bartok Industries. He grows at an accelerated rate both physically and intellectually. After seeing some of the ruthless ethic that the company has towards its experiments and the length they go for results Martin goes on a rampage and escapes. Also, his mysterious and idling chromosomes start to become active and he begins to mutate. First he has better strength and speed and soon he turns into a monster.

Much of the visceral symbols and themes from David Cronenberg's film are lost at the expense of gore and special effects, but parts of this obviously inferior film are nonetheless engaging. The character's motivation is clear, the atmosphere is pretty defined, and the film's last act is pretty exciting. Featuring some good gore effects and a ruthless act of revenge against an evil character ultimately make this film more satisfying than its reputation would suggest. 5/10

Rated R for violence, gore/gruesome images, and a sex scene

I caught this movie on cable last night; this is one of those films where the memory of having seen it years ago is better than the actual film.

The production design is actually quite good, surprising when, upon closer inspection, they apparently only built one set (the lab), and the rest of the scenes-- all brief ones-- were shot at cheap locations, such as Beth's houseboat, Martin's condo, and such. The acting is decent, considering the lack of any character at all (especially braindead Beth). Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga actually put some effort forth here, which is nice, considering this was probably little more than a paycheck for both.

The problem is the script. First-time director Chris Walas does well with what he was handed-- probably in pieces, from four different screenwriters-- but I got the feeling that a coherent, dramatic story arc was chopped down to a lightning-paced 111 minutes. It seems like entire scenes are missing-- or else they were never written. The bare bones I watched were perhaps merely excuses to link together special effects and make-up from Walas's FX company.

In that sense, it's kinda like a porno film. No one cares about the plot, the just wanna see the "money shot." And this one has a few-- they spent all their money on a) mutant dog ($100), b) Unlucky Security Guard #2 ($1000), c) fly cocoon ($50), and d) Alterna-Stoltz (priceless). This explains why, with the exception of Unlucky Security Guard #2, the deaths are not nearly graphic enough, and thus unsatisfying... considering how great a length the "story"-tellers go to make us hate everyone in the film who ISN'T Martin or Beth (or Borans).

The film is shot well, considering how few locations are used, though several directing mistakes jumped out, not necessarily worthy of the "goofs" section. For example, note how when Beth enters the lab, never having been there before.... at the end of scene, she somehow knows the exact command to type into the computer to open the doors on the OTHER SIDE of the room. How does she expect to find her way back to her desk? (which is apparently down the hall, less than 100 feet away... just like everything else in this building, which, by the way, we never see from the outside)

More proof there's another hour of this movie that's either on a cutting room floor somewhere, or just never got filmed. Pity the entire movie couldn't fulfill the promise of the single, memorable final shot, as the credits appear.

5/10, cuz it's half a film.

This does not touch the Cronenberg movie (or the Vincent Price movies, from what I've seen of those), but is definitely worth the watch for fans of gross-out monster flicks. The plot? The son of Seth Brundle (Harley Cross) is born in a corporate laboratory. He grows up at a very fast rate (now played by Eric Stoltz) and falls in love while discovering the evil secrets of the bigwig and his scientists, who have raised him. Nothing helps him on his quest to destroy them more than when the metamorphosis that took place in Dad begins to take place even faster in Son. It has its funny moments (the under-used John Getz from the original gets some big, cynical laughs), as well as very emotionally moving moments (especially when Stoltz puts the mutant dog to sleep, which is very sad and touching). There is a hackneyed element, to be sure (the romantic part with the awful country song is something that would be perfectly acceptable to fast-forward through), but, overall, it's still a kinda fun movie that's more effective than many people might tell you. As far as the gore quotient goes, this one I would consider more of a splatter movie than Cronenberg's (which had its gross-out moments throughout, but wasn't as bloody as this one was). Still, if you like gore, I would suggest it especially. I myself have no problems with gore as long as I like the movie around it, and I liked "The Fly 2" enough to actually watch it more than once without that choice being under the influence of substances! Also, one way it was better than the first film was how it ended. While the ending to the first was somewhat abrupt (even if it was a great movie and didn't really need anything extra), this one features a happy ending that is not sappy (always commendable), as well as one of the greatest acts of vengeance ever agonizingly drawn out on film. All in all, I agree that "The Fly 2" doesn't really touch David Cronenberg's "The Fly" in overall quality, but it doesn't deserve the terrible reputation that's been heaped on it over the years, even if there's nothing to disguise the fact that is inferior.

The Son of Seth Brundle (Eric Stoltz) is raised in a laboratory by the company that funded Brundle's ground breaking research. He grows much faster than a normal man and is intellectually superior even at the age of 5, he is asked to continue his fathers work and begins to mix with other people, finally developing his young emotions; that is until the part of him that is Fly begins to take control.

The movie does start really well and has an interesting plot, but the acting is not sufficient enough to capture the complexities of the character and sell them to the audience.

The horror is really just a gore-fest that fails to be scary despite the desperate efforts of the sound engineers and the music score.

It's not awful, but it is inferior to the original 5/10

The Fly II picks up where the first Fly left off. Seth Brundle is dead, and Veronica Quaife is giving birth to their child. We learn that the child has rapid growth disorder, and we skip ahead to when he's 5 years old and a grown man. He is continuing his father's work under the watchful eye of Amos Bartok, a shrewd business man. Unknown to Martin Brundle, he carries his father's genes, and he begins to rapidly transform into a monstrous human/fly abhorration. Everything that made the first Fly so good is suddenly gone in this sequel. Just to name a few things: David Cronenberg, a good plot, good dialogue, good acting. They all decided to leave this project.

The Fly had everything. Tense, suspenseful horror, sci fi, drama, and even a sort of love story. The Fly II has got disgusting gory horror, little to no sci fi, no drama, and the love story is so underdeveloped that you might as well call it friendship with sex. The acting in this movie is so dull and unbelievable that it's pretty bad to watch. The only thing remotely okay in this movie is the FX, even though it's all used to show disgusting gore that the viewing audience doesn't really want to see.

The Fly II should only be watched if you're curious about the continuing storyline, but be warned that it is nowhere close to on par with the original.

2/10

I'm going to talk about 1986's 'original' 'The Fly' movie like it wasn't a remake. Believe it or not there was a time when horror movies were remade and still actually quite good without the overriding motive being a shameless cash-grab. It had pretty much everything you could ever want from a horror film - a great cast, memorable characters, a top-notch director and, of course, plenty of gore. It's success meant that a sequel was inevitable. But did it live up to the original? Does it ever.

'The Fly II' is nowhere near as good as it's predecessor, but don't take that as too harsh criticism - it's actually pretty good. For a sequel. And a horror sequel at that.

One major plus point is that it really does feel like a continuation of the story. Sadly Geena Davis doesn't reprise her role and Jeff Goldblum is only on screen for a few moments via the use of a video diary made during the first film. John Getz does return which aids the feeling of continuity and is as watchable as he was the first time round. As explored in the original film, an amazing scientist who created the means for teleportation fathered a child while he was semi-fused with an average house fly. Now the sinister corporation who financed the who project wants their returns on their investment - in the form of Seth's child.

Eric Stoltz plays Martin Brundle, who grows from a baby to eighteen in only five years. It's about that time that he starts to go through various 'changes' which are more than just hairs growing in intimate places and a deeper voice.

The plot - sort of - goes over old ground where we witness a man change into something horrible while trying to juggle a romantic relationship. However, despite its lack of freshness, it's just so damn watchable. It's one of those films where you can probably predict everything that's going to happen (and you won't be wrong!), but it doesn't really matter. It's just a fun little jaunt that has some pretty good creature effects in the second act.

No, it will never be as good as the original and I dare say that many who watched the Goldblum/Davis/Cronenberg outing may not even know it spawned a sequel. But if you're looking for a rare follow-up that doesn't detract from the original in any way and does its best to honour the spirit of what made the first film great, this one is a decent attempt.

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.

Garbage sequel to David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly. This one's about the son of the Goldblum and Davis characters from that movie as he grows to adulthood in five years and eventually starts to turn into a human fly thing, all the while being manipulated by an Evil Rich Guy. Honestly, who cares? It probably took them an hour to write the script for this. The movie stars Eric Stoltz and he's kind of expressionless through the whole thing (perhaps intentionally). It's directed by Chris Walas, who handled the special effects on the Cronenberg film. As you might expect, there's a lot of effects here, particularly of the gross-out variety. But the whole thing looks dingy and cheap. It's a movie full of clichés with little to recommend in its favor unless you're a gorehound.

This movie continues after the first one where the heroine from the first one gives birth to the son of the Fly Scientist.

She gives birth to the inhuman new born. Looks like a regular human boy but it isn't. His IQ is higher than an average human and he ages faster than a regular human too. The company the boy's father worked at is holding him as a test subject, because he won't fit perfectly in the human world.

At age 5, he resembles a full grown teen. They offer him a place at the company to continue his father's research and a place of his own.

All seem great to the kid, but he doesn't know that he'll soon become a new Fly creature.

This sequel is alright, follows a similar idea like before, only it doesn't have the ingredients for a well done sequel. Those who liked the first one might either hate it or like it. Either way there's really nothing too special about it. Again rent it first for your own opinion on it. But warn it has plenty of gross out parts.

I can't in good conscious call The Fly II a good film. It's just not. Gone are the memorable characters realized by strong performances and intelligent writing that touched on rich ideas. Gone, effectively, is the humanity.

But with Cronenberg, Davis and Goldblum all gone, that's to be expected, isn't it? And as far as cheap cash grabs go, The Fly II is watchable.

Strip away all the things I mentioned in the first paragraph and what are we left with? Well, the director of this film did the remarkable special effects on Cronenberg's film, and naturally those are in equally fine form here. And though the central love story here is wooden as hell, there's a subplot involving a mutant dog I thought was surprisingly touching.

I went into this simply hoping for a fun, sort of trashy 80's b-movie, and those were appropriate expectations to have. The acting is dumb and dialogue is obvious in a sort of charming way.

Unfortunately, what holds the movie back from excelling on it's own meager terms is that it repeats too many plot points from the first film, when it should be distancing itself from it a bit more.

If you are in the right mood for it, though, it's a perfectly acceptable, not-boring, joyfully disgusting way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Yep, the same studio that made the original classic "The Fly" from the late Fifties decided that it was time to revisit the franchise a few decades later. But this sequel to the far superior David Cronenberg re-visitation is not so much a vehicle for its grade-B cast, as it is a showcase for its new director, special effects wiz Chris Walas. To his credit, he knew that this was his opportunity to go bananas, and that's exactly what he did.

Eric Stoltz is given the unenviable task of picking up where Jeff Goldblum left off, as the equally hapless son of the Seth Brundle character. Geena Davis wisely took a time-out, so a lookalike actress takes her place as Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife, who conveniently gets to die in the first few minutes, in a childbirth sequence that may make anything in the "Alien" series pale by comparison.

As ooky and icky as Cronenberg's bodily mutation-horror point of view was in the previous outing, Walas takes those cues to the 'nth' degree here, so those who are animal lovers or possessing delicate stomachs are hereby given fair warning: this is NOT a pretty picture.

Cinephiles who have wasted oceans of print criticizing THE FLY II should take note: the notices were equally severe all those years ago for RETURN OF THE FLY, when Fox tried to cash in then on the predecessor that had such a great pedigree. That cast included Vincent Price, Herbert Marshall, Patricia Medina and Al (David) Hedison.

With the new-fangled model starring Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, didn't anyone get even a hint of "deja vu all over again?" C'est la vie. The only person sticking around (pun intended) from the "new original" is John Getz as the unfortunate bastard Stathis Borans, and to his credit, he played it with deadpan perfection, not to mention that his character is given the sequel's best dialogue. In other words, it's pretty obvious from the way he played things that Getz "gets" it.

Even if Stoltz and the non-descript Daphne Zuniga had been up to the task of overcoming the FX bombast on display (which they obviously weren't), the producers, writers and director weren't out to surpass the last episode in quality, as much as in the queaze quotient. Only Lee Richardson as Anton Bartok, the wicked, narrow-minded industrialist bent on exploiting the late Dr. Brundle's experiments to the max, does his job admirably well. You love to hate him on first sight, and the fact that he delivers the goods makes the gruesome fate his character suffers that much more satisfying.

So, in closing, let's sum up the main points here: for classic terror and the not-so classic follow up, go back to the Fifties original and its progeny. For modern-day mayhem and mounds of moldering makeup effects, go to the creepy Cronenberg version, then do not pass go, skip lunch and try this ordeal of offal on for size. You will be grossed-out, guaranteed, and popcorn is definitely optional, skipping the extra butter, of course.

"The Fly II"

As I write this review, I have never seen the remake of "The Fly" with Ian Malcolm - err, Jeff Goldblum - and Geena Davis. So I really have no basis to compare this sequel to. Therefore, I will continue with this review in light that I have not seen the original remake...

The film opens with a Geena Davis Lookalike giving birth to a son; she dies, the baby lives. Baby grows older, and because he is 1/4 fly, he grows at a rapid rate, for some reason. I'm not sure why this would make him bigger instead of smaller, but oh well. His name is Martin, and he turns into Eric Stoltz when he is five. Yes, you read that right. Five. Martin is looked over by the head of a company, where he is kept and given medication to keep him from turning into a fly...

But soon young Martin finds out that not everything is what it seems, and he begins to mutate into...THE LIZARD. Well, that's what he looks like, anyway.

As I watched this, I kept a careful eye on Eric Stoltz. Why? Well, as I'm sure everyone knows by now, he was originally cast for Marty McFly for "Back to the Future," and they filmed much of the movie with him before Bob Zemeckis dropped him for Fox. In fact, there is still a scene where he is diving into the Delorean that is intact. Freeze frame the film and you can see it's not Fox. I always thought that footage looked odd - like it wasn't Fox doing the stunt...

Anyway, I watched Stoltz and realized how bad he would have been as Marty McFly. He just isn't hyper enough - Michael J. Fox was perfect for Marty, Stoltz would have ruined it. He's not a bad actor, mind you. He's perfect for this role (well at least "good" for this role), but for Marty? Nah... On a side note, I'm not sure if this is a coincidence or bizarre in-joke, but Stoltz's character plays a kid named Martin...similar to Fox's character Marty McFly...Martin...Marty.... And, I thought of something else that I haven't seen someone point out before. Marty's last name in "BttF" is McFly. What does Martin turn into in this film? A FLY! Martin the Fly, Marty McFly...taking a quote from "Uncle Buck": "Is there a little similarity here? Ooh, I think there is!"

The film was directed by the creature effects artist of the original - and sequel: Chris Walas. You might recognize his name, because he wrote "Gremlins 2" and did the creature effects for "Gremlins," as well. Anyway, he directs the film pretty good for a creature effects artist...I guess...

What I like so much about this movie is its high campy quality. It is a hybrid of B horror movies from the fifties and sixties and the "new breed" of horror films in the eighties, that were like B horror movies with gore. Lots of gore. I guess it doesn't qualify as strictly campy, because the old horror movies were not so disgusting...so I just call these films the eighties B horror movies. Simple enough, eh?

I have always been a sucker for the campy horrors from the eighties, especially when they are sequels that tread into old territory. For example, in one scene we see footage of Jeff Goldblum being interviewed. Martin watches this with interest. And what I think is so interesting is that we can look back and say, "Oh, yes, that was before Goldblum knew he was turning into a fly." It's just interesting to do that. It seems like many films from the eighties would have archive footage from the original film. Anyway, "The Fly II" is a lot like these films. It gives us a glance back at the original. I'm not sure if I can explain in words what this does. It just provides a feeling for me - kind of like campy horrors make some people feel good. I like when horror movies--or any movies, for that matter--travel into the film before...we can look at the old characters and say, "Oh, yes, that was before this was going to happen..." It's just fun to do. I can't describe it in words.

This movie, like many horror sequels from the eighties, is just enjoyable. Odd, but enjoyable. It's hard not to have fun watching it. If you take it seriously you're going to have a pretty hard time watching, but if you turn off the brain for two hours you'll have some fun.

My only two complaints is that this movie is about a half hour too long, and the creature looks like a lizard and not a fly. Other than that, it is a fun ride. Not great, but a good, well done horror movie that never takes itself too seriously. Perfect for a Friday night.

3/5 stars -

John Ulmer

Somewhat to my own surprise, I actually enjoyed the 1986 remake of "The Fly." Because of that I decided to watch "The Fly II," but sequels being sequels, I approached it with very low expectations. That was fortunate, because approaching this with anything other than low expectations would have led to a major disappointment.

If you recall, "The Fly" ended with Veronica pregnant with Seth Brundle's baby. This movie picks up the story, with Veronica giving birth to Seth's son, named Martin, whose story this then becomes. We basically know where this is going. Martin inherits his father's genetically mixed up nature. He's very intelligent, he never sleeps, he ages tremendously quickly and he's raised in a laboratory by "Bartok Industries" who apparently think that studying him will accomplish something for them. The first two-thirds of the movie is rather dull to be honest. Not much happens. Eric Stoltz is decent enough as Martin, although he doesn't match Jeff Goldblum's performance as Seth in the original. The love interest in this is portrayed by Daphne Zuniga, who wasn't great. "Passable" might describe her performance.

This is directed by Chris Walas, who's really known more as a special effects wizard than a director. It's his first outing as a director, and there haven't been many more - which probably says something. The pacing was poor and he didn't manage to coax much out of the cast. His unique contribution really comes in the last third of the movie as Martin begins his inevitable transformation. The movie becomes a special effects bonanza, and took on the feel (to me at least) of an "alien loose in a spaceship" type of monster movie - except that the alien is Martin and the spaceship is Bartok Laboratories. It turns into a rather gory bloodbath eventually. There wasn't anything particularly original and I had a "been there, done that" feeling as the security guards sought out the thing Martin had mutated into. There's also a pretty predictable climax and a "gross out" ending.

If you stick with the original, you'll be a lot happier.

This movie, like Psycho II, has no right to be this good compared to its 1986 all-but masterpiece original/remake...but it is. I truly believe this keeps on getting better with each viewing and is never brought up when great horror movies and/or sequels are mentioned and that's a pity. While this isn't perfect, it's damn near great and has some very decent acting and gory special effects. Plus, it's a tad scary, hilarious at times and is original on its own from what was set up in its predecessor. HIGHLY recommended and of the first 9 I've recapped/seen for the first time from 1989, FINALLY we get to a reason to call 1989 my favorite year in cinema.

This is one of those better sequels, which the first time I saw it, immersed myself in. This one, we spend most of the time behind the well secured, corrupt confines of Bartok Industries, and revenge is abuzz in this one. Seth Brundle Jnr played superbly by Eric Stoltz, who of course. will genetically inherit all those inviting features, that make the great Goldblum look like such a darling, continues his father's work. While discovering what the corrupt organization has in plan for him, he soon begins that deteroiration hell amongst great special horror effects, and a lot of slime and goo. One teary eyed scene, early in the peace I hate, every time I see it, but if it's revenge, and some really nice shock gore (much more than the original, in tamed quota comnpared to this) this is for you, and if revenge is a b..stard on the b..stard, you'll love the final frame. John Getz, as the crippled ex husband of Davis's character, from the first, returns, sadly with not much screen time, providing some humorous remarks. All in all, a fine solid sequel.