talisencrw
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.
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
Ken123
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?
ccthemovieman-1
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.
AD
