Not as good as the first one. But it is still good. I watched this recently because I bought the box set(I have yet to watch Curse of the Fly but I will soon) a month ago. Now on to my review. If you are expecting the Fly to return, then you are going to be disappointed because he does not. It is about his son. His son turns into a Fly. The movie should be called The New Fly. Phillipe as a man/Fly his head is even bigger then Andre's in Part 1. This movie takes place 15 years after Part one. If the first one takes place in 1958(the year it was made) then that means that this one takes place in 1973. Funny because I do not recall seeing disco balls in this movie. LOL. Well this was shot in 1959. I enjoyed this movie. I think that Vincent Price does a better job of acting then he did in the first one. He actually has a bigger role in this one. I recommend this film. If you liked the first part then you will like the second part I believe. My overall rating is 7 out of 10 flies. Enjoy. P.S. The scene where Vincent Price faints is priceless.

To be honest I've always thought the original Fly movie a decent effort but no great shakes - it keeps horror mainly off-screen for a tragic romance, and while it's stylish-looking and engaging Vincent Price gets very little to do. Here, at least, he has a slightly more central role. It may be a hasty knock-off but the sequel is a more traditional horror movie and fun to boot.

Of course the Fly here - played by Brett Halsey as the son of the original transmigration inventor Andre Delambre - looks utterly silly, with a massive over-proportioned head that is unintentionally funny. What is often missed is the frequently mentioned problem of giganticism in the movie, which makes it perfectly logical I suppose. Several times characters say they've cracked the problem; the evidence here suggests not!

The action has moved on about 15 years, and opens with the funeral of Helene Delambre. The movie incidentally is crisply photographed in black and white, and in no time at all we are back at Delambre Freres, scene of the original experiments. Even Michael Mark, the actor who carried his drowned daughter into the village way back in the original Frankenstein, pops up as the watchman, and Phillipe Delambre quickly expresses his determination to carry on in his father's footsteps. He, is, however, not particularly on the ball when choosing his assistants.....

Along the way we get a human crossed with a Guinea Pig (yes, really!) and this time the script is clever enough to make sure the human/fly hybrid is no accident. It is not so clever in explaining how on earth The Fly knows of the existence of the dodgy undertaker, though!

So, yep, the movie may be silly once the Fly gets loose, but it remains enjoyable. Turn your nose up if you wish, but there are many worse films than Return Of The Fly.

BRETT HALSEY is one of those handsome young actors from the '50s who never quite made it to stardom, and following the trend of other such actors, he fled to Europe where he found a niche for a decade or so in adventure films. He was certainly a competent enough actor and it's a shame Fox never groomed him for major stardom.

Nor did Fox have enough faith in this one to use technicolor (as they did for the original). As sequels go, it's just a fair job on an obviously shoestring budget--and basically, without giving any of the storyline away, it's a story of revenge.

It's all suitably photographed in low key B&W lighting that gives it the proper atmosphere. The performers are capable enough--including Halsey, Vincent Price, John Sutton and Dan Seymour--but their material is scarcely worthy of their combined talents. Fans of this sort of science fiction will no doubt find it has a certain amount of interest.

Anyone who enjoyed "The Fly" will want to see this and probably not be too critical of the shortcomings--although the special effects are not quite as harrowing as they could be.

Summing up: Okay for a viewing, but not likely to be the kind of horror flick anyone will want to revisit.