Rating: 
Summary: buy the damn movie !
Review: This is one of my favorite comedies and just awesome follow up to the 1st part. Jack Palance is brilliant and so is the rest of the crew. If you think the 1st part is better; you need to have your head examined ! I only hope they'll do another one.
Rating: 
Summary: Why no City Slickers III? (3.5 stars)
Review: This sequel is at least as good as its precursor. It combines solid (if unspectacular) humor, with a feel-good message. But the director got it right. You need to start with the humor, to engage the viewer, before bringing in the heavier themes. Otherwise it's too easy for the uninvolved and sarcastic viewer to write the film off as corny or too sincere. It can be said that there is nothing truly innovative in this film; in some respects it aims for the common-denominator, but it hits it. The fact of the matter is, this is the level at which a lot of guys interact and bond. The treatment of westerners and women aren't great, but that's not what this modest movie is about. It's about male bonding. Other pluses include the strong acting and the well-defined characters. Palance and Lovitz prove interesting muses for Crystal, albeit in very different respects. And even if we've heard it a million times before, it's good to be reminded that what you learn along the way is often more valuable than the what you are pursuing in the process. So while this film is no great work of art, unlike the main characters in their quest, the moviemakers fully achieve what they set out to do.
Rating:
Summary: Why no City Slickers III? (3.5 stars)
Review: This sequel is at least as good as its precursor. It combines solid (if unspectacular) humor, with a feel-good message. But the director got it right. You need to start with the humor, to engage the viewer, before bringing in the heavier themes. Otherwise it's too easy for the uninvolved and sarcastic viewer to write the film off as corny or too sincere. It can be said that there is nothing truly innovative in this film; in some respects it aims for the common-denominator, but it hits it. The fact of the matter is, this is the level at which a lot of guys interact and bond. The treatment of westerners and women aren't great, but that's not what this modest movie is about. It's about male bonding. Other pluses include the strong acting and the well-defined characters. Palance and Lovitz prove interesting muses for Crystal, albeit in very different respects. And even if we've heard it a million times before, it's good to be reminded that what you learn along the way is often more valuable than the what you are pursuing in the process. So while this film is no great work of art, unlike the main characters in their quest, the moviemakers fully achieve what they set out to do.
Rating:
Summary: The Three Buckaroo Stooges 2
Review: This sequel to one of 1991's highest-grossing films was released theatrically on June 10,1994,three years and three days after the first film. For one reason or another,Bruno Kirby elected not to return for the sequel. Helen Slater was written out also. But Slater's character from the first film,Bonnie Rayburn,was mentioned in one scene. Here,Mitch Robbins(Billy Crystal) is jogging in one scene with his "youngest son",a cow named Norman,whose weight is now about 400 pounds. Mitch adopted Norman in the first film after Norman's mother was shot dead while borning him. Daniel Stern reprises his role of Phil Berquist,who is now divorced from his mean-spirited wife Arlene. Succeeding Kirby is Jon Lovitz,late of TV's Saturday Night Live,whose character is Mitch's brother. Mitch returns home from work one day(he celebrated his 40th birthday that day) to find his brother visiting the Robbins' home. The brother tells Mitch that Norman has a problem. Thinking the cow is female,the brother tries to milk him. "The cow's name is Norman. You were pulling on his d---!",Mitch tells his vagabond brother. Mitch,his brother and Ed take another western vacation. This time after abundant library research,they discover a map leading to a goldmine,owned by Mitch's and Phil's late friend Curly. Curly's identical twin appears in this film,played by Academy Award winner Jack Palance who played Curly in the first film. Mitch was about to realize that Curly was buried alive. In one scene,Phil considered reconciling with Arlene,since he misses marriage. How could he? She treated him mean. This is the same scene where he mentions Bonnie. In the final scene,Mitch and Curly's twin are in a Las Vegas hotel room with the discovered gold. This is another one of those not-too-popular sequels. I think Kirby should have appeared in this film. He was probably immersed in another project at the time of production. Cool film!
Rating: 
Summary: Deja vu!
Review: Why do they have to do it? OK, I admit, "City Slickers" was great, but why do they have to try to capitalize on the success of a fist novie and make these sequels. And why do you, yes YOU the people who go and see them and rate them so highly, give them the encouragement. Witht he exception of the "Star wars" trilogy and "Indiana Jones" trilogy sequels never fail to disappoint! This is the same old garbage withthe same old gags. "He's behind me isn't he?" Phil nods "Yes!" with a vacant and stupid grin on his ugly mug. Oh please. We haven't heard THAT one before have we? That was incedibly annoying! Even moreso when we are expected to laugh at it! "City Slickers" was a self-contained movie. It didn't need a sequel. So why do it?
| 
