La Mouche 2

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 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

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

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.

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.