VenturousArtist The sequel to the 1986 remake, of the 1958 motion picture of the same name, has all the potential but no innovative style or flair. Immediately from its introduction, it's an insulting continuation as it partakes oddly middling storytelling and downgraded characteristics. Aside from being heavily flawed by its reduced quality, misguided directing, and bland acting it also remains focused being absolutely grotesque. While its predecessor wasn't far from being repulsive, this sequel however offers no charm or likable traits with its disgustingly dreadful atmosphere. It's a failure as a sequel and standalone carrying the name even with its eccentric but boring premise.This bug deserves pure extermination.

SnoopyStyle Veronica Quaife pregnant with Seth Brundle's baby delivers a mutant. Seth's employer Anton Bartok keeps the baby which grows rapidly. Five years later, Martin Brundle (Eric Stoltz) is a young man continuing his father's work. One night, he meets overnight-shift worker Beth Logan (Daphne Zuniga). Martin conceives a way to cure his mutation but it needs to transfer the mutant genes to another donor.Special effects head Chris Walas of the first movie takes over the directing role. It doesn't have the same body fears of the Cronenberg horror. The story is a simple plain sequel. Stoltz is fine and I like Zuniga. Bartok is not impressive enough. There are lots of gore. The fly monster isn't filmed that well but it's lots of goo and blood. I think simply turning off the lights would elevate the scares. It's a weak horror. The story is functional. The young couple is nice. Overall, this is a major step down from Cronenberg.

Fluke_Skywalker Where David Cronenberg's original 'The Fly' rose above its B-movie premise and roots to become an operatic tragedy, the sequel never even aspires, much less reaches, those lofty heights. Instead it mucks about in the genre gutter, happy to be nothing more than a B-grade monster movie.The first two acts move at a snail's pace, with nothing compelling happening and no clear sense of urgency. Things come alive a bit in the final half hour, but it's all just standard monster/horror genre stuff.The make-up F/X are pretty good, and Lee Richardson eschews hamming it up as the would be villain, but 'The Fly II' is otherwise a very big step back from the original.

IndridC0ld What this film did was make me very uncomfortable. That dog scene, really, was that necessary? Haven't the writers ever had a pet that needed put down? Don't you know how bad that feels? Well, this movie brought back all those Awful memories. After that dog scene, I really didn't give a damn what happened to any of the characters in this movie. I'll never watch it again. I don't give too many movies bad reviews, but this one made me feel bad long, LONG after I saw it. All I could think of was the face of every pet I ever had to put down. I don't expect every movie to be a feel-good experience, but this movie was the equivalent of taking a family with a son in a Turkish prison to see Midnight Express.