Featured Audience Ratings

• Universal D

  
  Taking up immediately where Cronenberg's succinct homage to Frankenstein leaves off, sort of a Son of Frankenstein, the child of the monster seeks to break the curse. The cast is sorta up to the challenge but w/o the intelligence and love inherent in the first, w/o a script, and… More
  Taking up immediately where Cronenberg's succinct homage to Frankenstein leaves off, sort of a Son of Frankenstein, the child of the monster seeks to break the curse. The cast is sorta up to the challenge but w/o the intelligence and love inherent in the first, w/o a script, and with a less experienced director, well, there isn't much of a chance.

• Jeff "

  
  Mediocre sequel to a fine horror classic, this sequel doesn't really offer anything new. The film has some good points, such as a good special effects and a semi decent story. However the ideas for its plot are not that great, and feel underdeveloped. The ideas expre4ssed in this… More
  Mediocre sequel to a fine horror classic, this sequel doesn't really offer anything new. The film has some good points, such as a good special effects and a semi decent story. However the ideas for its plot are not that great, and feel underdeveloped. The ideas expre4ssed in this sequel are predictable. The ideas are nothing new, and most of its -plot is a copy of the Cronenberg classic. This is more of a special effects film this time around, as the plot is comprised of old ideas and relies on that to create its atmosphere for this film. The film somewhat entertaining, but you realize that it could have been much better than this. The film has some great special effects, and that's really the highpoint of this film. Fans of Cronenberg's version of the film may be disappointed in this sequel, as it lifts a lot of elements from the first film. The Fly II is a mildly decent body horror film that has more emphasis on the films special effects than on story. For what it is, this a decent sequel and it's somewhat entertaining, however there's something missing to really make this film a standout sequel, unfortunately the film relies on recycled ideas from the first film, which makes this for a very ordinary sequel. That's a shame because there were so many ways to develop the whole Seth Brundle's son into an effective plot. Watchable, but forgettable.

• Cory T

  
  Quite the pleasant surprise for me to discover that 'The Fly II' isn't a disgrace from the rarefied heights of Cronenberg's masterpiece. 'The Fly II' elects a different route with a furiously mean-spirited monster-on-the-loose saga that ramifies from the… More
  Quite the pleasant surprise for me to discover that 'The Fly II' isn't a disgrace from the rarefied heights of Cronenberg's masterpiece. 'The Fly II' elects a different route with a furiously mean-spirited monster-on-the-loose saga that ramifies from the original while wrenching pathos for the socially maladjusted Martin who casually asks "Do you have organic matter?" to the late-night staff of the scientific facility. In an unexpectedly touching scene, Martin euthanizes a canine that is mangled from the telepod experimentation. Darabont and company inject a lot of wily symbolism with a bug zapper and the flapping sound effects of a helicopter at the opening. When Martin metamorphoses into the fly, it's an insanely fun, grotesque creature-feature with mounds of gelatinous makeup (an acid-dissolving face) and poetic justice for the lead villain. Of course, 'The Fly II' is not the equal of Cronenberg's mesmerizing remake, but it is contagiously enjoyable, heart-breaking and unapologetic in its bloodletting.

• AJ V

  
  In this same way that the original Fly movie did not need a sequel, but got one anyway, the remake gets an unneeded sequel as well. Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not bad, just annoying.

• Conner R

  
  A movie that completely builds on the theories and science dealt with in the first. Instead of becoming a cheesy monster movie, it adopts more of a sci-fi feel. This makes the movie intelligent and furthers the plot rather than destroy its credibility. Eric Stoltz as the son of Seth… More
  A movie that completely builds on the theories and science dealt with in the first. Instead of becoming a cheesy monster movie, it adopts more of a sci-fi feel. This makes the movie intelligent and furthers the plot rather than destroy its credibility. Eric Stoltz as the son of Seth Brundle is some great casting, he completely takes the reigns of Jeff Goldblum and does something unique as well. While there is fly transformation, it feels believable and not goofy. This may not have the unique style of David Cronenberg, but it has something equally cool behind it.

• Anthony L

  
  Not as good as the first but it?s a decent story and it almost matches the first films sweeter moments as well as having a good dose of gore. As sequels go, this is pretty good!

• Jason O

  
  I've never seen the ORIGINAL original, but I'd always been a big fan of the 80's remake of The Fly, so I watched this one first chance I got and wow....can't believe all the bad ratings and reviews. The creature looks awesome and I loved everything about this… More
  I've never seen the ORIGINAL original, but I'd always been a big fan of the 80's remake of The Fly, so I watched this one first chance I got and wow....can't believe all the bad ratings and reviews. The creature looks awesome and I loved everything about this movie. One of the more underrated sequels of all time.

• Phil H

  
  Not as good as the excellent first but still fun and gorey. Stolz is good as the eerie and odd son of Brundle and the action n gore is topps. The story is silly and its alittle the same really but its just 80's fun and much better than most modern day efforts. The fly at the end… More
  Not as good as the excellent first but still fun and gorey. Stolz is good as the eerie and odd son of Brundle and the action n gore is topps. The story is silly and its alittle the same really but its just 80's fun and much better than most modern day efforts. The fly at the end doesn't come close to the first though.

• Cassandra M

  
  The offspring of deceased scientist Seth Brundle is growing up at an accelerated rate, and after reaching the human age of five but looking much older, starts the inevitable metamorphosis into an upright walking fly creature that seeks revenge on the two-faced, rotten scientists who… More
  The offspring of deceased scientist Seth Brundle is growing up at an accelerated rate, and after reaching the human age of five but looking much older, starts the inevitable metamorphosis into an upright walking fly creature that seeks revenge on the two-faced, rotten scientists who pretended to be his friends. The child, named Martin by the scientists, is played at different ages by Matthew Moore, Harley Cross, and Eric Stoltz. At five Martin also finds his first love interest, a lovely night shift computer file clerk played by Daphne Zuniga. I thought it was a fairly intense and entertaining creature feature even if debuting director Chris Walas, creator/designer of the special effects, is not in the same league as David Cronenberg. I think it could have been worse. Performances are reasonably good, even if the villains are one-note and unimaginative. Probably what I got more out of it than anything else was a certain visceral pleasure in seeing a bunch of jerks and otherwise expendable characters get their just desserts. Not as good as the first movie but not that bad either.

• Robert C

  
  Hey...it was a "double feature"! More silly, gross-out fun. Basically they just changed the charaters and the location and improved (slightly) on the special effects. Other then that, it was practically the same film as "The Fly".

• Daniel H

  
  Forgettable sequel which, like so many horror sequels, merely devolves into a gore-fest now that everyone is familiar with the general storyline borrowed from the first film. Still, there are two moments worth watching: 1) The quote: "He stole my girl, got her pregnant, caused… More
  Forgettable sequel which, like so many horror sequels, merely devolves into a gore-fest now that everyone is familiar with the general storyline borrowed from the first film. Still, there are two moments worth watching: 1) The quote: "He stole my girl, got her pregnant, caused her death... he dissolved my hand and foot with Fly Vomit! I have no love for the man." Of course, this quote comes from the only actor to return from the original, John Getz. 2) When a security guards face gets melted off from the aforementioned Fly Vomit. If there is only one up-side to having a Special Effects artist direct a film, it would be this.

• Lafe F

  
  This movie took the story of "The Fly" to the next generation, with Seth Brundle's son (Eric Stoltz) being used unethically to continue the research by a corporation. Like the first film, it's a people story until the new Fly emerges, and then it's an… More
  This movie took the story of "The Fly" to the next generation, with Seth Brundle's son (Eric Stoltz) being used unethically to continue the research by a corporation. Like the first film, it's a people story until the new Fly emerges, and then it's an action-packed gore-fest where people die in gruesome ways. I really liked the tragic ending, with the pitiful creature which remained.

• Dr Blood  

  
  Not quite as good as it could have been but the grisly special effects are superb and there are some very touching moments.

• xGary X

  
  Schlocky re-hash of Cronenberg's schlocky re-hash of The Fly. It has a decent premise, but has far more interest in showy ropey gore effects than presenting anything fresh or new. The two stars are about as interesting as dry wall as well.

• Steve B

  
  Apart from the perpetually nude Daphne Zuniga, there's not much point to this.

• Dean M

  
  This is an expectedly gory and gooey but mostly plodding sequel to the 1986 film.

• Matthew Y

  
  Not as bad as its reputation, The Fly II delivers heavily in the make-up gross out category and manages to craft a (at the very least) fresher story than just a simply rehashing of the original film. The reason why The Fly (1986) worked so well was because of the absolute horror at… More
  Not as bad as its reputation, The Fly II delivers heavily in the make-up gross out category and manages to craft a (at the very least) fresher story than just a simply rehashing of the original film. The reason why The Fly (1986) worked so well was because of the absolute horror at what was happening to Brundle and the fear of just how far it would go. That plus great acting, directing and the heartbreaking relationship between the two leads. The Fly II contains none of this and even has a ridiculous happy ending. It's much more of a typical monster movie, especially in the final act, but it delivers in the gore areas in spades and even the first parts are interesting enough as we watch Brundlefly's sons' rapid development and secluded life inside a corporate science lab. I've become a big fan of The Fly franchise, both new and old, and I'll admit there might be a little bias here but I thought The Fly II was certainly a watchable movie even if it is also easily skipped.

• Lee K

  
  This one wasnt bad persay, although not even a flicker on its predecessor starring goldblum, however watchable and they folloed the storyline nicely

• Eduardo C

  
  That Cronenberg's "The Fly", one of the few damn near flawless entries into the genre, got a sequel is bad enough. That the sequel is nothing but an excuse to have people be killed by a fly creature in graphic manner is inevitable, I suppose, but no less disappointing… More
  That Cronenberg's "The Fly", one of the few damn near flawless entries into the genre, got a sequel is bad enough. That the sequel is nothing but an excuse to have people be killed by a fly creature in graphic manner is inevitable, I suppose, but no less disappointing as it follows a film that was anything but. Eric Stoltz is very good in the role of Brundle's offspring, and brings credibility to a character whose very existence is ridiculous and who could easily have been a plot puppet. The rest of the cast is not nearly as good, however, not that the writing does them any favors. Aside from a surprisingly effective sequence involving a dog, the film is pretty much flat. There is no emotional attatchment possible (unlike in its brilliant predecessor) because the film is a technical excercise. Yes the gore factor is higher than in the original and the fly creature makes a more extended appearance, but that is just about all there is. Only bother with this one if it's on TV, uncut, and there is literally nothing else on. This is what "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2" was to "A Nightmare on Elm Street", though it's not as bad and the original "The Fly" was miles better than NOES 1.

• Barry L

  
  Brundelfly was better

Read all 20 featured audience ratings