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.

Critics and most members of the public that saw this sequel when it first came out trashed it. Is it as bad as its reputation suggests? Well, although I don't think it's a very good movie - especially when compared to the more thoughtful original movie - it's a little better than you may have heard.Certainly, it has some severe flaws. The main problem with the movie is that for the first hour or so of the running time, it feels REALLY slow and drawn out. Yes, the original movie wasn't rapid paced, but more things were unfolding in its narrative. Although I wasn't really bored, I was impatient enough to keep telling the movie to just get on with it.After the first hour has passed, things start to get moving. The next twenty or so minutes are okay, and then the remaining twenty or so minutes are kind of fun, with monster action and some impressive gory special effects. Had this gory spirit been with the first eighty minutes, we might have had a dopey but fun spatterfest. But as it is, the movie for the most part is unsatisfying. There are some good ingredients, but something went wrong cooking the entire package up.

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.

Garbage sequel to David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly. This one's about the son of the Goldblum and Davis characters from that movie as he grows to adulthood in five years and eventually starts to turn into a human fly thing, all the while being manipulated by an Evil Rich Guy. Honestly, who cares? It probably took them an hour to write the script for this. The movie stars Eric Stoltz and he's kind of expressionless through the whole thing (perhaps intentionally). It's directed by Chris Walas, who handled the special effects on the Cronenberg film. As you might expect, there's a lot of effects here, particularly of the gross-out variety. But the whole thing looks dingy and cheap. It's a movie full of clichés with little to recommend in its favor unless you're a gorehound.