ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

George Taylor This is perfect reason why not every movie deserves a sequel. While the cast and the sfx are decent (best scene: The Fly petting a dog, and the look on the dogs face). But basically this is just the first movie with a happy ending.

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.

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.

ManBehindTheMask63 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.