Exoticalot
People are voting emotionally.
Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Curt
Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.
adonis98-743-186503
The almost-human son of "Brundlefly" searches for a cure to his mutated genes while being monitored by a nefarious corporation that wishes to continue his father's experiments. The Fly II is better than most sequels are these days but that doesn't mean that it's that good either. Not having any of the original actors for the sequel was pretty bad plus it seems the studio went for the B-List cast and the overall result is pretty much disappointing although the special effects once again i will admit were quite terrific for the time being for this poorly sequel. (4/10)
kaefab
I am very sensible to animals and i could not watch this movie after the dog scene, such a beautiful loving dog who was all dis formed after they tested the transport machine on him.I purchased the movie on blue ray, transferred it to my PC, then edited it with some software, remove the dog scene and it makes for one incredible movie now.
kmecameron
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.
Leofwine_draca
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.
