City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 43 reviews in total 

17 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

I know I'm in the Minority When I Say That...

Author: Elswet from .: Fiendish Writings in the Dark :.
1 March 2006

I found this film much more fun and fulfilling than the first because of the addition of Jon Lovitz to the base cast.

I realize this goes against common opinion, but I believe this installment was much better executed. The first movie, when compared to this sequel, feels like the main characters had something to prove to one another and not just to themselves where this chapter feels more self-motivated and "real," primarily to the addition of Jon Lovitz

One thing is for sure, without the City Slickers' version of the Criterion Brothers as ranch hands, it was definitely more enjoyable for me. The "danger" sequences were slim and short while maintaining a tall adventure.

Instead of using the first third of the movie to develop all the characters, they catch you up on Phil and Mitch and then lovingly introduce you to Glen. It left more time for the actual movie and less time for the "you must grow up to be a warrior" speeches and diatribes.

I loved it! Jon Lovitz is awesome!

It rates an 8.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Clueless Characters, But Funny

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
21 March 2006

I don't have a problem with sequels because many times I find them more appealing than the original. This is another example, although not a wide margin. The first was good; this is a little better.

Despite being almost two hours which is long for a comedy, this moves very fast. That's the selling point of the movie: it's entertaining. Not only do you get a comedy with a lot of laughs, you get brilliant Western scenery enhanced by the widescreen DVD.

The negatives, at least for me, was the all-too-secular outlook on life and an obsession with sex espoused by lead actor Billy Crystal and his clueless buddies Daniel Stern and Jon Lovitz and the unnecessary profanity by Jack Palance.

All the characters, however, are definitely fun to watch and there is a good message in the end about sacrificing for friends and relatives. The story also features a very neat twist at the end. This is a film you can laugh at with multiple viewings.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

pretty good; Palance gives another winning performance

Author: vchimpanzee
21 March 2004

I don't know why it took me so long to see this sequel. It has been so long since I saw the original that I can't make a comparison. But Billy Crystal gave as good a performance as usual, and Jon Lovitz was a worthwhile addition as Crystal's idiotic brother. Jack Palance gave another Oscar-winning performance as the sailor-turned-restaurant-pirate who hoped his late brother knew a big secret (too bad those who decide Academy Award nominations didn't agree).

It took a while to get to the quest for "Curly's Gold", but even the early parts of the movie were entertaining. The search for gold was the best part, with these bumbling idiots, and Duke, getting into all kinds of trouble. Plenty of action, and beautiful scenery, and lots of physical comedy. I wasn't all that happy with the ending, but the reality is, can a group of ordinary guys really be happy if they find millions of dollars in gold? I won't say what went wrong in their quest, but they did get to be really, really happy at one point, and that was satisfying.

The real gold here was Duke's telling of his life story, and the guys working together despite incredible odds. This was probably as good as the first movie for those reasons.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Generates Enough Laughs To Recommend...

Author: MovieAddict2016 from UK
11 December 2002

"City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold" brings back Billy Crystal as Mitch Robbins, and Daniel Stern as Phil Berquist, plus a new cast member: Jon Lovitz, playing Crystal's brother Glen.

Okay, so "Slickers II" isn't as funny as the first. I agree. However, I think it does have some laughs, and generates enough to recommend, especially if you are a fan of the original.

The basic plot of this film is that Crystal and pals find Duke (Jack Palance. Yes, I wrote Jack Palance. Read on for explanations) -- Curly's twin brother (See? Now it makes sense, right?) -- or rather, he finds them. After letting them in on a secret that there's buried treasure in a cave somewhere out in the yonder, and that Duke wants Crystal to help him find it, we're all geared up and ready for more City Slickers.

Really, the "plot" is just a worthless excuse to see familiar faces in a big Arizona desert. But, a lot of sequels have throwaway plots, and I think there's a bit of magic to this one. Of course it's contrived and silly, but it's like a bunch of little kids following a sketched treasure map. It's fun to watch, and brings back fond memories.

I recommend City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold. It's not great, but it's fun, and worth a few bucks on a Friday night.

3/5 stars-

John Ulmer

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The same jokes from the first movie are flogged to death in this one.

Author: frickabee
14 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm willing to forgive the fact that Billy Crystal declared this movie better than the first one and overlook the very contrived inclusion of former cattle drive participants as well as an evil twin. All that notwithstanding, this sad sequel forgets the honest and genuine drama that was at the heart of the original film and replaces it with dopey, juvenile humor and an egregious attempt at sentimentality. We get to hear the same boring, recycled jokes from the first movie beginning with the birthday morning phone call, to the dialogue about setting VCRs, to the same dumb joke, "He's behind me isn't he?" I know Crystal's irritating screaming is always good for a chuckle, isn't it? It just goes to show if a joke doesn't work the first time, use it again, only louder. If you're a Jon Lovitz fan and want to see him do a halfway decent attempt at drama rather than his schmaltzy performance in this movie, I recommend Mr. Destiny. If you want to see Billy Crystal do drama, don't. I'll admit that I did like this movie when it first came out, but I've since graduated from Junior High. This movie was an overall eye-rolling train wreck which was only made to capitalize on the laurels of the first one.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Amusing – but really just a retread of the original's jokes with less conviction and energy

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
12 November 2002

Now turning 40, Mitch Roberts is at ease with himself and full of confidence. He is doing well at work his marriage is good and he is happy. His friend Phil is causing him some trouble as he has Mitch's old job but isn't working well and further stress arrives for Mitch in the shape of his deadbeat brother Glen. However the trio get excited when Mitch discovers a map to hidden gold in the lining of Curly's hat. But can the group recover the gold successfully? Is it even real? And is Mitch just imagining that Curly has come back from the grave to haunt him?

I saw this years ago in the cinema and had vague memories of it as being pretty good. I saw it a few nights ago on TV and have to say that my memory has not served me well. The plot here is silly – any excuse to get three wise-crackers out on horses again in the wild west. The way they manage to rope Jack Palance back in doesn't really work and hurts the feel of the film. In the original Palance worked but here it feels like he's been shoehorned into it and that he's forced to over egg the cake.

The film has a few good lines and laughs but too often it just repeats jokes from the first film to lesser effect. It's a shame because the film is freed from the sentimental soul searching that bogged down the latter stages of the original. However it does nothing with this freedom. I'm sure I remembered this as a comic adventure yarn, again I was mistaken. The same old jokes but it lacks a soul or a centre. The original may have been a little sentimental but it complimented the comedy for the most part – here that is missing, and it hurts.

Crystal delivers his lines with vigour and is funny – I always find him funny! But at times he does look like he's on autopilot. Stern is also just treading the same old material over and is only so-so. Kirby decides not to return so Lovitz replaces him and actually does alright. However his brand of humour isn't as good as Crystal and the two don't gel – although he does get some good laughs. Palance tries again but the Oscar magic isn't there and I couldn't help feel he took away from his original role somewhat.

Overall this is amusing at best but really pales against the original (which wasn't a classic itself). The action isn't up to much and the comedy only delivers a few laughs, preferring instead to retread as many of the original's jokes as possible.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Far inferior to the original

Author: mutty-mcflea from Lincolnshire, UK
8 June 2014

'City Slickers II' is perfectly watchable without giving us a single reason why it needed to exist. It's sort of fun, and there are some genuinely funny lines scattered about (the whole 'Pass the Phil' scene) but the first film was one of the finest comedies ever made, and this isn't.

Signs of desperation trickle through the movie like a cinematic flop sweat. As the plot mechanics groan in order to get Billy Crystal and Daniel Stern back in the saddle, we're first introduced to Curly's identical twin brother - a contrived way to get Jack Palance back - and then Crystal's brother (Jon Lovitz) fills the gap left by Bruno Kirby, a character you would think might have come up in all those conversations about family in the original movie. The happy ending for Stern's character is unfortunately reversed, which just seems a bit mean-spirited.

While it's likable, this has nothing like the depth or poignancy or sheer avalanche of hilarious, character-based dialogue that the first movie had. This is far more of a bland and straightforward adventure with a few funny bits, and there's no getting past the fact that 'City Slickers' didn't need a sequel and the one we have really isn't good enough.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

desperate for a repeat

Author: SnoopyStyle
31 January 2016

It's one year later and Mitch Robbins (Billy Crystal) is approaching his 40th birthday. He is content as the manager of the NYC radio station and happy living in the country with his family. His friend Phil Berquist (Daniel Stern) working under him is so depressed that he's considering a return to Arlene. His irresponsible brother Glen (Jon Lovitz) has come to town. While with his wife Barbara (Patricia Wettig), he discovers a treasure map in Curly's hat. He finds a story of a train robbery with missing gold worth about a million dollars. The three men go to Vegas and set off for a few days on their treasure hunt. Mitch has been haunted by Curly's presence which turns out to be Curly's twin Duke Washburn (Jack Palance).

This is so desperate to repeat the original that Palance returns as his own twin. I don't blame the movie for Bruno Kirby going missing. Who knows what the dispute was. Replacing him with Jon Lovitz feels forced which only adds to the manufactured nature of the story. I don't know if there was a time constraint but it seems to be a great opportunity for Mitch to take his wife on the journey together. If City Slicker is about a mid-life crisis, City Slicker 2 could be about some sort of family crisis. At least, that would have been moving the franchise forward. This movie has lost the chemistry and therefore lost the comedy.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

not as good as the original, but still great to watch

Author: TheNorthernMonkee from Manchester
5 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS Sequels can often be a mistake. Rarely as good as the first, they can even sometimes cause detrimental effects to the predecessor. In 1994 then so many must have questioned the logic in creating a sequel to the hit film "City Slickers" from three years before. As far as sequels go though, "City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold" isn't that bad. Yes it's not as good as the first film and there are times you groan with disapproval, but for the most part it is an entertaining follow on to the previous film.

Mitch Robbins (Billy Crystal) has turned 40. Preparing for a celebratory night of passion with his wife (Patricia Wettig), Mitch accidentally stumbles across a map in an old friends hat. Believing it to lead to gold, Mitch, best friend Phil (Daniel Stern) and "Godfather" quoting brother Glen (Jon Lovitz) head once more back into the desert.

Clearly believing it's viewers have seen the original, this story, written by the same pairing of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, is not afraid to put in constant references to the earlier work. Copying events which happened a year previously, lines are tributes of "City Slickers" and jokes are even part reconstructions. In effect, part II is almost exactly more of the same.

If you decide to repeat the original, then that isn't necessarily a problem. Bringing back Crystal, Stern, one or two other cameos and even Jack Palance (Oscar nominated for the first film), the matrix is the same and the jokes do flow. Taking ideas like the Shalowitz brothers ice-cream knowledge and changing it into Glen's letter counting skills, the film picks up old notions and jumbles them around to come up with something new.

The unfortunate truth of the matter though is that if you DO decide to just rehash a lot of the jokes and use the same cast and layout, then your going to loose something of the original. Amazingly, even though it was released only three years after the first film, this new part does feel a considerably more modern equivalent. With harsher colours and a more exaggerated opening animation, it feels almost like a remake. It also lacks the unique feel that the first film possessed. Introducing the characters for the first time, playing that music for the first time, stuff like that. It's like an old reunion where you meet up with the people you used to be friends with and go through the motions as if your young again. You can have a lot of fun, but you can never go back.

"City Slickers II" is fun. It's unashamed lighthearted fun which feels like more of a remake and tribute than a sequel to it's predecessor. Bringing back most of the old cast, it feels just like the continuation of the story. For the most part this is a good thing. Once more you watch Mitch and Phil as they roam the desert. You laugh with them, you reminisce with them, you bond with them. Ultimately though, something is missing. The originality of the first film isn't there and whilst the film is still great to watch, it's not as good as it's predecessor. Fun though.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

It was disappointing, but there are much worse sequels out there

Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
19 May 2010

You can probably tell from the review title that I absolutely loved the first film, the sentimentality occasionally got in the way, but it was funny, beautifully filmed and had adept direction and performances. I admit I was disappointed in this sequel, but there are much worse sequels out there, reading my past reviews you'll probably guess which ones I'm talking about. The film is beautiful to watch with a nice score, and the ending was great. And there were some funny moments, if not anything that I would quote like in the first. Plus the performances are good, Jack Palance makes a brief but worthwhile reprisal here, and Daniel Stern is as goofy and as charming as ever. Billy Crystal is much more reserved here though, and Jon Lovitz did irritate me. The flaws however come in mainly the basic plot structure, I know the first film had a simple story structure but this one had more so and the direction which isn't as skillful or as efficient this time around. Another problem was the pacing, while the film's length itself is fine there are times when the film does drag and badly. As I have said already there were times when I did laugh, but for me it wasn't quite enough. Overall, not an awful sequel, but it was disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history