The Fly II (1989)
4/10
A very unnecessary sequel...
21 April 2017
If you haven't seen the original Cronenberg "The Fly", then chances are that you might actually find some enjoyment in "The Fly II", if you take it as a stand-alone movie.

However, for us that have watched and enjoy the 1986 movie, then "The Fly II" is nothing more than a shameless attempt to cash in on the success of the first movie. And it is so blatantly a copy of the first movie, that they hardly even bothered with changing anything in the storyline.

"The Fly II" follows the exact same formula that the first movie did; except this time it is the son of Seth Brundle, who has inherited the fly DNA cells from his father. But other than that, it is essentially just a scene by scene copy of the first movie. And it is this that make the movie such a drag to sit through.

On the plus side, then "The Fly II" does have some very young and inexperienced Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga in the lead roles, which makes it somewhat bearable to sit through this rip-off of the first movie.

The effects in "The Fly II", however, definitely had a notch upward compared to the first movie. Which is a natural evolution, of course, since there were three years in between the movies. And the special effects team in "The Fly II" do deserve most of the credit for making the movie watchable.

"The Fly II" is not a movie that was necessary to add to the former movie, because it offers nothing to the particular story and universe established here, aside from it being the son of Seth Brundle this time around.

All in all, a less than mediocre movie that is salvaged primarily because of good effects.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed