Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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

kmecameron I can't in good conscious call The Fly II a good film. It's just not. Gone are the memorable characters realized by strong performances and intelligent writing that touched on rich ideas. Gone, effectively, is the humanity.But with Cronenberg, Davis and Goldblum all gone, that's to be expected, isn't it? And as far as cheap cash grabs go, The Fly II is watchable. Strip away all the things I mentioned in the first paragraph and what are we left with? Well, the director of this film did the remarkable special effects on Cronenberg's film, and naturally those are in equally fine form here. And though the central love story here is wooden as hell, there's a subplot involving a mutant dog I thought was surprisingly touching.I went into this simply hoping for a fun, sort of trashy 80's b-movie, and those were appropriate expectations to have. The acting is dumb and dialogue is obvious in a sort of charming way.Unfortunately, what holds the movie back from excelling on it's own meager terms is that it repeats too many plot points from the first film, when it should be distancing itself from it a bit more.If you are in the right mood for it, though, it's a perfectly acceptable, not-boring, joyfully disgusting way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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.

gwnightscream Eric Stoltz, Daphne Zuniga, Lee Richardson and John Getz star in this 1989 sci-fi/horror sequel. This begins with woman, Veronica (Originally played by Geena Davis) dying after giving birth to a baby. Soon, we meet the child, Martin Brundle (Stoltz) who is not only very intelligent, but ages rapidly because of his late, father, Seth (Jeff Goldblum). Richardson plays businessman, Anton Bartok who adopts Martin and is head of company, Bartok Industries. Soon, Martin learns about his father, his research and that he's inherited his insect genes trying to find a cure. He also discovers that Bartok is corrupt and using him to continue his father's work. Zuniga (Spaceballs) plays Martin's love-interest, Beth Logan and Getz returns briefly as Stathis Borans who is now crippled. This isn't a bad sequel that's underrated, Stoltz is great in it, Chris Walas' make-up effects are grotesquely good and Christopher Young's score is great as usual. I recommend this.