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)
capone666
The Fly II The worst insect you genes can be spliced with would be one that loves feces. And while the adolescent in this horror movie isn't part dung beetle, he is half housefly. Raised in a government laboratory ever since he first emerged from a larval pouch five years ago, Martin (Eric Stoltz) now appears to be a full-grown adult. On his 5th birthday, he learns his inventor father (Jeff Goldblum) died after a teleportation experiment fused his DNA with that of a fly's. As Martin repairs his old man's telepods he too begins to mutate into an acid-spewing insect. A direct sequel to David Cronenberg's 1986 reimagining of the 1958 original, this 1989 follow-up does not retain its visionary director but it does manage to amplify the gore. In fact, this underrated addition has a number of unforgettable death scenes. Incidentally, human-fly hybrids never get invented to parties where there's uncovered food. Yellow Light
TheMarwood
This derivative schlock delivers the gooey goods. Characters range from being one dimensional to about an 1/8 of a dimension, which is about most of the cast of characters who all work for the evil Bartok. Eric Stoltz does as much as he can as the brilliant boy raised in a lab and will turn into a horrible, mutated fly. The shaky narrative is built around make- up effects and they are more than adequate here. The last act of the film is the usual stalk and kill as many underdeveloped, evil characters as the make-up effects department can handle. It's a fun little creature feature with a toxic reputation that really isn't that bad.
jokerswild1
This movie gets a bad rap that I feel is undeserved. Sure, it's nowhere near as great as the 1958 or 1986 Fly films, but it's still pretty good.After the events of The Fly (1986), Veronica dies during childbirth, producing a larval sac containing the infant son of Veronica and Seth. The baby is named Martin, and is taken into the custody of Bartok, the owner of the company who funded Seth's experiments. Due to his fly genes, Martin grows at an accelerated rate, having the emotional and physical maturity of a man in his mid-twenties by age 5. Martin's fly genes then start to surface, and he escapes Bartok Industries with employee Beth Logan, who he is romantically involved with. Martin's mutations continue to progress until he is recaptured by Bartok, and he then fully mutates into a large monster that rampages through Bartok's building.The special effects in this are top-notch, which isn't surprising considering this film is directed by Chris Walas, who handled the special effects for The Fly and Gremlins. The Martinfly creature in particular is awesome, and the mutated dog creature's looks make it both ugly and sympathetic. The Martinfly creature begins killing people almost immediately after its (re)birth, and the kills it racks up are great, in particular when it vomits acid on a guard's face.Eric Stoltz does a good job as Martin, and like Jeff Goldblum, he has to act through pounds of makeup much of the time. Bartok is an OK villain, he's a bit of a stereotypical emotionless businessman, but his fate as a deformed lab experiment is a welcome and unconventional end for a villain. The third act is the highlight, but the first two acts of the film are still quite good. It's a more conventional monster movie than the 1986 film which is far superior, but it's well done for what it is.
AD
