blanche-2 Following up on the tremendous success of City Slickers in 1991, City Slickers II was released in 1994. It made about a third of the money that CS I did.The film starts with a Mitch (Billy Crystal) dreaming about Curly (Jack Palance) coming out of his grave; Mitch wakes up a wreck that Curly was buried alive. He shakes himself out of it. It's his 40th birthday, and we can see that his life has changed and he's much happier as he jogs in the morning with Norman, the steer he saved.It's a rocky day at the station. He has gotten Phil (Daniel Stern) a job there, but it's not working out and he's afraid he will have to fire him. Phil is down because of his divorce, so Mitch invites him to the house. On the train home, Mitch could swear that he sees Curly.When he gets home, he sees that his lower brother Glen (Jon Lovitz) is there. Looking forward to a romantic evening with his wife (Patricia Wettig), Mitch ultimately sends Glen off with Phil. Later, he goes through the things he still has of Curly's and finds a treasure map.Before you know it, Mitch, Glen, and Phil are out looking for the treasure, eventually getting help from Curly's twin brother Duke. Like Mitch's own brother Glen, Duke was the black sheep of his family.Funny film with Lovitz and Crystal in fine form, and another good performance by Palance. Lots of good one-liners and amusing premises, along with some pathos. Thanks to the actors, the film retained the warmth of the first movie with likable characters.Enjoyable, if not as good as the first.

TheLittleSongbird 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

gcd70 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

roberta2 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.RR