La mouche II

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.

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.

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

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.

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.