City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :.