La Mouche 2

"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

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.

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.

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.