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

Clueless Characters, But Funny

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 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.

Cornier copy of first

[richspenc · 7/10 · 3 March 2017]

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.

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

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 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

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

[bob the moo · 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.

Better than the first

[Scott351w2001 · 7/10 · 30 August 2006]

A rare case of the sequel being better than the original. I say this because "City Slickers II", unlike "City Slickers", is presented as a comedy, and is funny, thanks largely to the talents of Jon Lovitz, as Mitch's brother. The first film, in my opinion, tried to be a "serious" film, within the context of being a comedy, as the main characters reflect on their lives as they ride along the trail on their horses.To me, this made the film stilted and pretentious. There was none of this in the sequel.We get pure comedy. I think the film also benefited from the inclusion of Lovitz, and the absence of Bruno Kirby, whose character I found to be annoying in the first film. (I mean no disrespect toward Kirby, who recently passed away) Also, the DVD contains a good commentary by Crystal and Lovitz, whereas the first film has no commentary.

"You know, this whole situation drips with irony".

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 21 March 2015]

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.

Could have been better!

[telemationltd · 4/10 · 1 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.

Ultimately disappointing

[kyle-cruse · 6/10 · 21 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 ****

Terrible sequel. All about making a buck off the name.

[billkexel-56544 · 1/10 · 27 February 2022]

This movie can't hold a candle to the original. The first movie was written very well, and told a great story. The cast was great. CS2 loses that by replacing Bruno Kirby with Jon Lovitz, who adds NOTHING. If Kirby chose not to be in it, I have more respect for him.

The fist CS movie lost/killed off Curly, but you can't have a CS2 without him, right?, so why not bring him back....as his twin brother? (Oh brother!)

This sequel ranks right up there with the all time worst sequels "Blues Brothers 2000" Which is very difficult to watch after seeing the original.

This movie like BB2000, was clearly made to make a quick buck off the name.

Not bad as far as either 90's comedy sequels or Western comedies go!

[talisencrw · 7/10 · 13 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.

Cynical retread

[imdb-2920 · 4/10 · 4 March 2021]

Once again, poor yuppie Billy Crystal is having trouble at work. Although he's inexplicably fallen upward from failed ad salesman to station manager, has the house in the Westchester with enough land for a bull, and has a wife who's out of his league. All that and he's only turning 40.

His only trouble (aside from a mother whose still alive and loves him and calls him on his birthday) is that he gave a job to his friend and his loser brother has come to stay. Oh, and he thinks he's being haunted by the ghost of Jack Palance, who's looking for his lost dignity. They even manage to spend a whole sentence on why the fluffy blonde Meg Ryan chick from the first movie never came back.

Crystal finds a treasure map and decides to take a side trip from a Las Vegas convention to get the gold. For some reason he decides not to just take an extra couple days there as vacation, but instead lies to his wife about his intentions, even though she was completely understanding about his spending two weeks playing cowboy last year. Oh look, plot tension.

A little Jon Lovitz goes a long way, and there's enough of his usual shmuck routine to last you the rest of your life here.

Throw in a complete recycling of the two bad guys routine, a stupid rip-off of Temple of Doom mine car railroad stuff, and a completely contrived ending in which Parlance has found the gold (and has proof) and yet claims he needs Crystal to help him find the gold.

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

[FiendishDramaturgy · 8/10 · 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 :.

Better than the first IMO

[Caleb_Everett · 6/10 · 6 February 2019]

Well, it looks like those city boys are at it again. This movie is so funny to me, I know that it's not touted as being "great cinema" and that's probably a correct statement, but it's just so fun.

I really enjoy Daniel Stern and his portrayal of the struggling Phil always leaves me laughing. Billy Crystal is in his normal form, but I do have to say that he goes a little over the top on a few moments.

This is one of those movies that anytime it's on TV I'll stop and watch.

Utter Contrivance

[gcd70 · 3/10 · 19 March 2008]

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

Generates Enough Laughs To Recommend...

[MovieAddict2016 · 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

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

[TheNorthernMonkee · 6/10 · 5 June 2005]

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.

I've seen worse sequels

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 6 December 2013]

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.

What a load of rubbish

[philrich-785-393285 · 1/10 · 5 August 2020]

What a load of rubbish. It could have been good, but the slapstick acting, throughout the film, including the very last line, just was too far over the top. I was actually shocked at how stupid it was. Why did I watch it, you ask? Nothing better to do, I'm afraid, in these days of Covid-19.

An overlooked sequel.

[snoop1123 · 7/10 · 4 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!

desperate for a repeat

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 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.

City Slickers III?

[Ken123 · 7/10 · 22 July 2006]

Why isn't there a City Slickers III? The first two movies were very good and the end of City Slickers II would make you think it leaves the door open for another sequel.

I think anyone who rips this movie is one of those people who is looking to rip movies because, in my opinion, this movie is pretty good! I'd really like to see Billy Crystal come back to this role with Daniel Stern and, hopefully Jack Palance.

Maybe it could be a tribute to many of the Western stars by having people like Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Kirk Douglas in it.

What do you think?

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

[frickabee · 3/10 · 14 January 2006]

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.

Funny People in a Great Movie

[Hollywood_Yoda · 8/10 · 18 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.

Hilarious ensemble performances.

[vip_ebriega · 6/10 · 14 April 2007]

My Take: Not as good as the first, but it's a decent follow-up.

The first "City Slickers" was a thoughtful comedy. It focuses on a human story and laughs. It wasn't surprising to find the laughs come full-circle in this sequel. I found this sequel even more hilarious, but let's not say it's better, because there's hardly any difference.

This sequel reunites only two stars from the original. Billy Crystal and Daniel Stern, reprising the roles of Mitch and Phil. Mitch is now 40 years-old, and bored with hi life, until he finds a dirty old treasure inside the hat of their dead partner Curly. Of course it's worth millions. of course they'll go out and find it (and than do the "I found the gold!" dance from "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre"), some the plot elements are familiar, but the laughs more than make up for it.

Jack Palance, doing the role of the brother of his character in the original. And Jon Lovitz portrays the role of Mitch's overreacting brother. So far those elements quite work.

Rating: *** out of 5.

Gee, the things that some people consider necessary...

[lee_eisenberg · 4/10 · 26 July 2006]

I don't think that the first one really needed a sequel, but "City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold" is OK if we just accept it as completely ridiculous. Billy Crystal and Daniel Stern reprise their roles from the original, this time looking for gold said to be buried in the mountains where they had the cattle drive, but Jon Lovitz replaces Bruno Kirby. Jack Palance also returns, not as Curly but as his brother Duke. Needless to say, there's a series of silly situations along the way.

I guess that I wouldn't call this movie god-awful - the comments about trying to milk the "cow" were pretty funny - but they really didn't need to make this sequel; the original was just fine. I can see why Billy Crystal didn't have any hits in between "City Slickers" and "Analyze This".

Also starring Patricia Wettig, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Bill McKinney (the "squeal like a pig" guy from "Deliverance"), David Paymer, Josh Mostel, and Billy Crystal's two daughters.