City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold (1994) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
I know I'm in the Minority When I Say That...
Elswet1 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 :.
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Clueless Characters, But Funny
ccthemovieman-121 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.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
pretty good; Palance gives another winning performance
vchimpanzee21 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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Generates Enough Laughs To Recommend...
MovieAddict201611 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
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The same jokes from the first movie are flogged to death in this one.
frickabee14 January 2006
Warning: 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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Amusing – but really just a retread of the original's jokes with less conviction and energy
bob the moo12 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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
g_barnette21 April 2003
This one of the worst sequels I have ever seen. The script had about as much substance of an episode of "Gilligans Island" (minus the charm) I was insulted that as a avid moviegoer I had to sit thru this crap and expected to be as entertained like I was with the original film(which was a gem). All I can say is that the movie studio heads saw the $$$$$ the original made and thinking that another one would profit just as much,regardless if the script was good at all or not.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Funny People in a Great Movie
Hollywood_Yoda18 May 2003
Its an all star cast with Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern, Jon Lovitz, and Jack Palance. I thought it wouldn't be very good, since it was a sequel,but, I was wrong. Jon Lovitz is the new character after Bruno Kirby left, and plays Billy Crystal's brother, and plays him well. Lovitz role in this film is one of his career best with the exception of "A League of Their Own". In this sequel to City Slickers (1991), the boys are on a treasure hunt for Curly's lost gold. They get into a lot of trouble, and mix-ups along the way. The part where Phil thinks a snake may have bit him is really funny too. It is a roller-coaster ride of fun. I give it a 8 out of 10.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It was disappointing, but there are much worse sequels out there
TheLittleSongbird19 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
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Utter Contrivance
gcd7019 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Utter contrivance is the only way to describe this complete rehash of the 1991 smash hit comedy "City Slickers". Again we have three lost, middle aged men searching the wild west for treasure, again accompanied by craggy faced, stony hearted Jack Palance, back from the dead, as it were. Not only is the basic plot structure the same, but all the clever comic moments from the first film are carefully milked again here.

Crystal appears to be doing an old routine that looks very tired from early on. Support form comics Daniel Stern and Jon Lovitz (whose character is a waste of space) is uninspired, and it's left to the ever enjoyable Jack Palance to rescue the sinking ship, which he really isn't quite able to do.

Writers Billy Crystal, Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel are never able to capture any of the hilarious moments that made the '91 flick so successful, yet they did commit the same error that the original movie's writers Ganz and Mandel did in the first, letting proceedings get clumsily sloppy at the close.

Scene after scene is so obviously contrived that it is impossible to let go and enjoy the film. Even one fantastic piece of eye catching cinematography is clearly a set up. What can you do?

Monday, June 10, 1996 - Video
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bruno Kirby was right. This Movie SUCKS!
elvisbloom4 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Curly had a twin brother? Really? And he is just as surly? Wow! Well, let's make a great sequel. OR NOT. Bruno was smart. They asked him back, he probably read the script and said something to the effect of "No way! Never! Not for all the money in Paris Hilton's Yochee!" And seeing it, it's no wonder Jon Lovitz did it. This is the same guy who starred with Teri Garr WAY past her Mr. Mom days. Remember all the things you loved about the first one? They are here in a perverted unfunny way. I don't mean perverted in the touching little boys sense, but in the sense they are taking something good and molesting it. City Slickers isn't a classic, its cute but sappy and melodramatic at times. The second one just plain blows. It gets on it's knees and starts bobbing like a trained seal. While the first one was about a search for one's self, the second one was about money. And that ending? Incredibly dumb. I wish I could go back in time and sabotage this movie. Burn the sets, kill minor actors. If you are someone who enjoys watching this, drink heavily. You got nothing going for you.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
desperate for a repeat
SnoopyStyle31 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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not as good as the original, but still great to watch
TheNorthernMonkee5 June 2005
Warning: 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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ultimately disappointing
kyle-cruse21 October 2009
A lot of the time I avoid sequels to successful comedies, but "City Slickers II" received some fairly good ratings, so I decided to check it out. Unfortunately, I found this film just not funny or emotional enough, and it felt a bit unoriginal. There are some things that had potential, such as Billy Crystal thinking he sees his old friend Curly at several places, as well as his dream at the beginning of the film, which was worth a few laughs. One problem is that the jokes just do not feel original here, and this film uses the exact same gag from the previous film in which Crystal mouths the words his mother says when she calls on the phone. Neither Crystal or Daniel Stern is very funny here. Jack Palance is pretty good, but not flawless as with the previous movie that won him an Oscar. One downfall to this film is the addition of Jon Lovitz, who cannot act and behave like a child most of the time. There were good scenes, such as Palance discussing his relationship with his brother and such, but ultimately the film becomes cheesy and anticlimactic. There are some fairly off-color scenes as well, one thing that earned this film a PG-13 rating. If you want my advice, stick with the original, a funny film that had good jokes, emotion, and even some lessons, and somehow felt like an original, good comedy.

**1/2 out of ****
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could have been better!
telemationltd1 January 2009
Every so often you get a sequel to a really good movie that is even better than the original; sadly this is not one of them.

The gags are more crude than subtle, and stretched till all the stupid people get them, to the point of discomfort, and redoing the VCR gag that was great first time round was a crime against comedy.

I loved the first film and after waiting 15 years to catch CS2 I have to say I was disappointed. The start is slow and bogged down by domestic issues that did not contribute to the plot in any meaningful fashion.

CS1 was uplifting, CS2 is a predictable repeat and subtracts from your fondness for the characters as they discover greed.

Thankfully Jack Palance lived on to make a few more films after this for us to remember him by, may he rest in peace.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
better than the first!
fellasleep21 December 2002
if you liked the first city slickers, you'll like this one. if you didn't like the first one, you might enjoy the legend of curly's gold - its funnier, its more exciting, theres more of a story, and it has to do with treasure. what more could you want?
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lacks That Pinch of Magic the First Had.
tfrizzell8 June 2002
Uneven sequel has Billy Crystal, brother Jon Lovitz and close friend Daniel Stern hitting the old west one more time to find Curly's gold (Jack Palance from the first film). Naturally you can't have a "City Slickers" without Palance so this time he plays Curly's twin brother. The laughs seem forced and the good messages from the first are absent this time. The other colorful characters only make token appearances during the film's ridiculous final act. Bruno Kirby is missed here as well as Lovitz just does not feel right in this one. Fair overall. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An overlooked sequel.
snoop11234 November 2017
Is this movie Oscar worthy? No. Is it fun to watch when you've got some time to kill? Yes. City Slickers II might not have the impact and lasting impression the first one has but it's still great in its own right. It's a bit cheesier than the first but there are some genuine laughs to be had.

If you're a fan of the first one you should definitely watch this one and see if you like it. Apparently some people hated it , but I think a lot of that comes from a persons expectations going into this. The first movie was touching and had some great life pointers. This one is something to watch for a good time and to see (most) of the characters you love from the first again. Only true negative I could throw out there is Bruno Kirby not returning for whatever reason. Jon Lovits is a funny addition to the team though.

Give it a shot!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cornier copy of first
richspenc3 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A cornier version of "City slickers" original with a lot of copying including the "he's behind me isn't he " joke. Especially the dumb way the joke was carried out the second time when the two cowboys came up behind them while Mitch and company were on their wild west trek. Mitch could've thought of something better to say then "what a coincidence, we were just talking about you. " It was easy to tell the cowboys were shady characters, just by the way they were staring at Mitch during their first meeting at their country store. All Mitch could think of saying was this: after the cowboy tells Phil "I'd think twice before going back to your wife, that would be like sticking your balls in a baear trap". Then Mitch says "that would be a bad thing right?" The cowboys just stare at him uneasily. Mitch: "a joke, that was a joke". The cowboys keep staring. Mitch: "well, it looks like I'm parked in a handicap zone". Cowboys keep staring. Mitch: "gays in the military, what's your thoughts?" Cowboys keep staring not saying a word. None of Mitch's comments there were funny and the whole scene played out all anxious and uneasy. The cowboys in the first film were the bad guys so that also made it easier to figure out the same thing with the cowboys here (and the Mitch talking/ cowboys starting silently scene in the first film was funnier and I liked the way he said "rough corral"). I already knew they were into the copying thing in this movie from already seeing the first "he's behind me" joke in Mitch's house and the happy birthday phone call from Mitch's parents.

The first part of the movie in New York was pretty good with our "1 year later" scene with Mitch jogging with the now adult cow Norma. I liked his comment to Norma "if it weren't for me, you would've been a hundred wallets." I wish Mitch would've also thrown in a second comment "if it weren't for me, you would've also been a hundred quarter pounders with cheese." But there's no point in me dwelling on something the writers should've put in the movie but didn't.

Bruno Kirby did not return for this film due to Billy Crystal and him having fallen out, from what I read. Instead we get Glen (John Lovitz), Mitch's autistic brother who showed up against Mitch and his wife's liking. It seems Glen had a busy couple of hours at Mitch's house before Mitch arrived home from work. By the time Mitch gets home from work, we hear how during that afternoon Glen has already come over, asked Mitch's wife to make him a sandwich, made long distance calls, acted a scene from "The godfather", watched a Spanish soap opera, and tried to milk Norma. Of course the latter leading to a rather tasteless joke when Glen shares his "milking " experience with Mitch.

Now about Jack Palace's role as Duke, Curly's twin. We get a couple scenes earlier in the film revolving around Mitch thinking he buried Curly (from first film) alive when Mitch thinks he's seen him following him. Obviously, the sight of "Curly" following Mitch turns out to be Duke. I like how Mitch asks Phil (Daneil Stern) if Curly was a narcoleptic. And I liked the whole plot of Mitch finding the treasure map in Curly's hat, Mitch and Phil's actions in New York that happen right after the map finding. I found funny when Phil and Mitch are walking down the street excited about the map, Phil: "4 million dollars Mitch! 4 million dollars!!" Mitch: "a little louder Phil, some of the crack dealers didn't hear you". I also enjoyed a lot of the out west treasure hunting scenes with Mitch, Phil, Glen, and Duke. Some of the comments and repitours between them all during the hunt were really amusing. We get a funny reappearance from Ira and Barry Shallowitz, and liked the comments between them and Duke, Barry: "nice to meet you Duke, we helped bury your brother" Duke: "oh? Maybe someday I can do the same for you". I also found funny the other trail boss Clay Stone from the first film showing up and seeing Duke saying "great buckets of bull****, it's Curly!" I remember his hilarious comment from the first film "I'm as happy as a puppy with two p*****!"

There is a good twist near the end, and the very last scene leaves a big opening for another "City slickers " sequel, but we never got one.

The last scene with the cowboys in the cave, one of them was very obviously a different guy from the guy that was tagging along with the other cowboy in the other cowboy scenes. I don't know what the deal was with that.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad as far as either 90's comedy sequels or Western comedies go!
talisencrw13 April 2016
Let me start right off in saying that three reasons I enjoyed this film have absolutely nothing to do with cinema, and all three comprise the fine TV work I saw, while growing up in Canada in the 70's and 80's, that the stars Billy Crystal, Jack Palance and Jon Lovitz had made, in 'Soap', 'Ripley's Believe It or Not' and 'Saturday Night Live', respectively. I haven't even bothered seeing the original yet (the more highly-regarded work that surprisingly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Palance).

I cared not a single whit about the plot--it was just fun watching the stars interact and riff off of each other. I did feel that the direction lagged in places, and perhaps a more objective editor could have sliced 10-15 minutes off and no one would have been the wiser. Not bad considering it was a sequel--it's worth a couple of watches, though I'm not surprised, and I'm a tad relieved, that no more of them were made.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A pretty good, fun film
vincentlynch-moonoi30 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I disagree with many of the reviews. I think this was a darned fun movie. Maybe some people are taking every film too seriously. Just sit back and laugh, sometimes just chuckle because of a good-hearted movie.

I was glad I watched this again after 20+ years because as I did I remembered how much I appreciated Billy Crystal over the years. First as a young actor in "Soap", then as an impressionist, later in several entertaining films, and his hosting of the Oscars. Crystal had a very nice touch to things -- funny, yet also sentimental, and it shows through in this film.

His sidekicks here are Daniel Stern, not my idea of a memorable actor...but his performance worked very well here. And, Jon Lovitz, another non-favorite of mine, yet again, his performance worked here. And of course, Jack Palance is here...again, not one of my favorites, but he was good for the role.

The location photography here is terrific, the script pretty decent, and the story line reasonably good. I liked it...with no apologies.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"You know, this whole situation drips with irony".
classicsoncall21 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't find myself cracking up as much with this movie as I did with the original "City Slickers", but it had it's moments, and finding a way to bring Jack Palance back was a definite must for a sequel. One thing I did like was the way they worked in the concept of the treasure hunt into the story line after Mitch (Billy Crystal), Phil (Daniel Stern) and Greg (Jon Lovitz) all thought they really were on to a million dollar discovery. Along the way, the picture makes clever use of geography and terrain to support the Western Pacific Railroad robbery saga, and references to "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" were entertaining and well placed.

You probably had to see the first movie in order to appreciate some of the repeat gags offered by Mitch and Phil on the trail like programming a VCR, and an early scene with Mitch running along side of Norman wouldn't have made any sense without having done so. Crystal manages once again to plug his admiration for Mickey Mantle while wearing a Mets cap, and when he simulated that drag under the runaway wagon it brought to mind all those B Westerns for which Yakima Canutt invented the gimmick.

There's at least one takeaway I got from the picture that makes it memorable; I'll bet this is the only movie ever made in which a character uses the word 'pi--pot'. It occurs when Duke (Palance) gets irritated over the boys whining about how cold it is as they try to figure out a way to warm up. Right around the same time Duke doubled me over when he described how his mother died, stabbed in a bar fight at ninety five. The imagery there is simply impossible. Go ahead, try it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
okay movie
roberta228 April 2006
I would say the movie city slickers 2 would of been an excellent movie except for all the sex stuff, I mean do we really need to see him with his wife? do they really need to throw that in during the ride for the gold? is it because the producers felt that they would get more viewers, thus more money by throwing that in where it really didn't fit the drama? to often they try to get more viewers and buyers by throwing sex scenes in there that really don't' fit the theme or drama unfolding, who cares about what someone's parents were doing, that should of never been even mentioned, it is disrespectful anyway to even bring that up. and frankly not funny or entertaining.

but i loved the scenery, the horses, and the other drama, the chase for glen before he goes over the edge, and the feeling like billy crystal is really doing some of the stunts there, and that he can really ride and ride fast and hard, as opposed to a lot of actors who have doubles do the fast and furious scenes in their movies.

I enjoyed the duh ness of glen and phil who seem to be from another planet sometimes. out of touch with reality so to speak they seem to be. and mitch jogging with his cow was funny, but they could of left out the milking the cow part, it was disgusting.

I enjoyed it when they thought they found the gold and we so happy and they had to find out the hard way it was lead. and the campfire scenes, where they are sitting talking and joking around.

but i have to say if you saw the first one you know the horse he is riding is the same horse with it's face painted. so overall it was okay, no terrific, but not really all that bad either.

I personally didn't like the third guy in the first movie, in fact I can't remember his name I thought he was a jerk, really stupid character there.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the real treasure
agentexeider20 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While i would agree the beginning reason for their quest was motivated by greed, at the end, they realize that it was the adventure that had changed their perceptions of each other and their characters, Glen stepped in front of a bullet for his bro and finally accomplished what he set out to do, something he hasn't ever done. Phil jumped a guy at least twice, and had found himself and his own life, with out having to define it by his ex wife. Duke turned honest and gained Integrity. Mitch gained courage, i mean he was gonna suck on Phil's ass.;) He learned to trust his brother. In the end, they found a treasure greater then gold. Then they get the gold so they Win twice :D
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews