The Fly II (1989) – Review

In 1986 David Cronenberg helmed one of the all-time great horror remakes, unfortunately for us, Cronenberg wasn’t interested in tackling a sequel, so instead of us getting another intelligent adult horror film the people over at Fox gave us a generic teenage monster movie that had none of the thematic elements of the original.

The film picks up where the first left off, focusing on the unfortunate offspring of Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) and Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) – with the character of Veronica now being played by a look-a-like actress – and the movie opens with Veronica (Saffron Henderson) giving birth while her ex-boyfriend/ex-boss Stathis Borans (John Getz) looks on in horror. The procedure doesn’t go all that well and poor Veronica dies while giving to what looks to be some sort of insect larvae – this turns out to be just a larval sac with a normal-looking baby boy inside – but I’m still curious as to why she went ahead with the carrying the baby to term, she seemed really set on an abortion in the last film. While the baby appears normal at first sight – after being peeled out of its larval sac – it is soon discovered that he is growing at highly accelerated has incredible reflexes, does not need sleep and possesses a genius-level intellect.

Danger! Child Genius at Work.

At the age of five but looking twenty-eight, Martin Brundle (Eric Stoltz), begins to learn of the genetic anomalies that plagued his father, setting the stage for a tragic narrative arc, which is the heart of the film’s conflict as this is all taking place at Bartok Industries, the company that funded his father’s experiments, and while CEO Anton Bartok (Lee Richardson) wants Martin to think of him as a father figure it’s clear to us that he’s just your typical evil corporate villain, one that we’ve seen in dozens of films like this.  How evil? They use a beautiful dog for an early teleportation experiment, that they didn’t know young Martin had bonded with, and it is horribly deformed by the process.  At least this does set the stage for Bartok’s ultimate demise. Unfortunately, Bartok isn’t the only villain of the piece as we also have the head of security Scorby (Garry Chalk) whose sole job seems to be acting like a complete asshole when not being creepy as fuck. Then there are Bartok’s top scientists, Dr. Jainway (Ann Marie Lee) and Dr. Shepard (Frank C. Turner), who clearly never signed off on the Hippocratic Oath. Between the doctors’ callous and uncaring behaviour and Bartok’s cruel manipulated actions, this film has its bases covered when it comes to villainy.

“Do we look cartoonishly evil enough?”

The original film had a tragic love story so the studio, of course, mandated that the sequel must have a love story as well, which leads to the introduction of Beth Logan (Daphne Zuniga), an employee of Bartok Industries whom Martin bumps into while doing one of his nightly sojourns – he doesn’t sleep and while Bartok Industries may have an evil head of security it doesn’t mean he’s good at this job so Martin seems to have free reign of the place – and after a meet-cute the couple they quickly become friends. Now, there is a rocky moment in their relationship when Martin discovers that his beloved dog, who he was told by Bartok was humanely out down but is still alive and suffering. This is nothing but false conflict as it is almost immediately resolved and feels like nothing more than screen padding as it doesn’t bring anything to either character development or the plot, well, other than setting up that moral comeuppance of Bartok.

This ending is brought to you by screenwriter Frank Darabont.

It’s this kind of lazy writing that hamstrings the plot, while it attempts to explore themes of genetic mutation and scientific ethics, it often feels forced and convoluted and relies on clichéd tropes of corporate greed and unethical experimentation, failing to offer a fresh take on these familiar elements. Moreover, the pacing is uneven, with long stretches of the film feeling slow and meandering, punctuated by moments of graphic violence and horror. One of the film’s primary issues is its lack of subtlety. It doesn’t capture the same sense of dread and psychological tension that made the original so compelling. Instead, it opts for more in-your-face horror, which can feel overbearing and less effective in generating genuine fear or unease.

There will be no subtlety in this offering.

Stray Observations:

• Geena Davis declined to be in the sequel due to her distaste of the “maggot birth scene” so she was replaced by actress Saffron Henderson, despite being 10 years younger than Davis. Did having sex with “Brundlefly” cause her aging to alter as well?
• This film continues the tradition of having the lab accessed by a large sliding metal door, which is nice. On the other hand, Bartok Industries having the worst security measures ever is another thing altogether.
• Why would you test the telepods on a dog if it was still turning apples into applesauce? I had a similar issue with the 1986 film where Seth Brundle tested the device on a baboon rather than a lab rat or a guinea pig.
• Despite the accelerated growth and increased intelligence, Martin was still only 5 years old, so his having a sexual relationship with a much older woman is all kinds of wrong.
• When Bartok gives Martin a nice apartment, he is told “No more prying eyes” but when his tryst with Beth is discovered the security guard hands her a sex tape of her and Martin, which makes no sense if you are trying to keep Martin on board with all your mad science.
• When Beth tries to contact Martin the Bartok Industries operator tells her “I’m sorry, there is no Martin Brundle working here, please try again later.” But how would calling later make an employee who “doesn’t exist” suddenly be there?
• When Martin “hatches” from his cocoon, Bartok orders his security teams to capture him alive and unharmed, but we then immediately see the guards loading up with machine guns. Do they not understand what “live/capture” means?

To be fair, I’d want a bazooka if I was facing this thing.

While this sequel has its moments of creativity and gore, it ultimately failed to capture the same level of acclaim as its predecessor. The Fly II falters in its pacing and storytelling, unlike its predecessor, the sequel lacks emotional depth and philosophical musings about the human condition. The characters are underdeveloped, and the plot relies heavily on convenient plot twists. Additionally, the screenplay fails to establish the same level of tension and dread that made Croneberg’s film so impactful. This sequel is also marred by a lacklustre supporting cast, including Daphne Zuniga as Martin’s love interest, who doesn’t have much to work with in terms of character development or personality. John Getz reprises his role as Stathis Borans but his presence feels more like a nostalgic nod to the previous film rather than a vital contribution to this particular story. On the plus side, Eric Stoltz does deliver a commendable performance as Martin Brundle, evoking a nice mix of sympathy and horror as he deals with the curse of his genetics.

“If only I could go Back to the Future.”

Despite the shortcomings, The Fly II does deliver some visceral thrills and a few memorable moments of horror, the practical effects work is a testament to the craftsmanship of the team assembled for this sequel, and the film does maintain a gritty, dark atmosphere throughout its running time and the climax, while predictable, offers a satisfying resolution to Martin’s harrowing journey. Of course, where the film truly excels is its practical effects, which are a hallmark of the horror genre. The grotesque transformations Martin undergoes are both impressive and stomach-churning. Then there is the creature design, a hallmark of Cronenberg’s film, which continues to impress and the metamorphosis scenes are gruesome and visually striking, showcasing the talents of the special effects team led by Chris Walas himself.

Science has never looked so icky.

In conclusion, The Fly II is a serviceable sequel that manages to deliver some memorable moments of well-used practical effects and it maintains a degree of entertainment value for fans of body horror. However, it falls short of capturing the essence and intelligence of the previous film. But if you’re a fan of gruesome transformations and practical effects, it’s worth a watch. Still, don’t expect this sequel to match the psychological depth and impact of David Cronenberg’s masterpiece.