Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

snoop1123 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!

richspenc 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.

Scott351w2001 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.

agentexeider 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