La Mouche 2

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'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.

Without the likes of Cronenberg or Goldblum to carry this bizarre film, you would expect it to sink under its own weight. Fortunately, The Fly 2 is able to capture most of the unsettling and horror beats from the original, while putting a unique spin on it. The cast certainly does a great job jumping into this freaky world and working with the crazy guidelines given, but they lack the certain flair that Goldblum brought in the first. The story takes you out out Seth Brundle's seclusion and lands us in a place where privacy is rarely an option and the evolution can be seen by many. The setting and story give it the chance to have different experiences than the first, but also sacrifice a bit of the uncomfortable alone feelings that you wish it had. The Fly 2 stays true to the original and nearly keeps up in terms of quality.

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.

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.