one of my absolute favorites!

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The acting in this movie is really good.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

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.

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.

The Fly II (1989) * 1/2 (out of 4) Silly and rather stupid sequel has Martin (Eric Stoltz), the son of the original film's fly, growing up in a laboratory where he thinks they are keeping him healthy. He strikes up a relationship with Beth (Daphne Zuniga) and soon they realize that he too is turning into a fly.THE FLY II was a film that I'm sure the writers hoped would be much more serious but instead of doing anything fresh or original we're left with one of those sequels that simply copied the original film. The film was pretty much bashed to pieces on its original release because it was no ways near the quality of the original but I personally think it's hard for any sequel to live up to the original. With this film you'd hope for at least something entertainment but sadly that doesn't happen.There are all sorts of problems with this movie but the biggest is the fact that it's really just a copy of the first movie. Heck, even Zuniga looks like the Geena Davis character and the women basically have the same relationship with the man. The problem here is that the "love story" here is just rather lame and this sequel never captures the spirit, the energy or the emotion of the original. Whereas the 1986 film had you care for the characters, that's simply not the case here.I thought the performances were good for the most part with Stoltz and Zuniga doing a nice job as does Lee Richardson and John Getz. The real star of the picture are the special effects, which the MPAA let get away with quite a bit of gore. The man-to-fly creation was quite good, although I will admit that the actual fly looked too good for its own good. There are some memorable gore sequences towards the end of the film that gives us a bit of energy but it comes way too late.THE FLY II is a really bad sequel that just doesn't have enough going for it to make it work.

A lot of horror sequels from the 1980's seem to get an unfair criticism. What happens is the first film becomes a classic. A staple of the decade. And the fans/viewers expect a sequel to be of equal caliber and are disappointed/angered when a sequel shifts direction, style, story, or setting. For example, "Return of the Living Dead part II", "Halloween III: Season of the Witch", "Friday the 13th Part 5", "Bride of Re-animator". "The Fly II" falls in with the other mentioned horror sequels as underrated, classic 80's horror flicks that should be enjoyed on their own merit."The Fly II" features a decent enough plot about Seth Brundle's son Martin (Eric Stoltz) and the evil corporation that is trying to control him. There's some nice character interaction between Stoltz and Zuniga (even though their chemistry is a bit off) and a touching scene between Stoltz and a mutant dog. But the real reason to watch "The Fly II" (besides Stoltz outstanding performance) is to see the gore and carnage that ensues once Martin becomes the fly. It's some of the best gore I've seen and instantly launches the film into 80's classic territory! Heads get crushed, people melt, body parts gets ripped off. It's an awesome sight and worth sitting through the dull parts for (like the chase/on the run scenes in the middle)."The Fly II" is not on the same level as Cronenberg's classic but that doesn't mean it's not a great film. "The Fly II" delivers the goods and that damn scene with the dog makes me tear up every time! Only bad part...no nudity.