I’m not much of a Hollywood insider, but I have noticed that if a film does well financially it sometimes warrants a sequel. Some sequels are actually better than the original. And some sequels are totally unnecessary and cheapen the first film. If you are unsure which of those two categories City Slickers II falls under, just look at the second part of the title: “The Legend of Curly’s Gold.” Still not sure? It is an unnecessary sequel.
The premise is that (Mitch) Billy Crystal finds a treasure map in Curly’s old hat. Mitch, Phil (Daniel Stern), and Glen (Mitch’s brother, played by Jon Lovitz) decide to go in search of Curly’s gold. Oh yeah, and Curly had an identical twin brother named Duke, and Duke is just as tough as Curly. The only real difference between the two is that Curly was a cowboy and Duke was a Merchant Marine, and Duke’s name is Duke and not Curly.
So the four of them go on a treasure hunt, following the map and shit happens along the way. Eventually they find a cave, and in the cave they find a treasure chest. And in the treasure chest is gold! But then it turns out it was only fake gold, and they are sad for a minute, before they realized that even though the blatantly failed, they still succeeded in a way (even though they really failed). And then they all go home.
Just when you think that it’s the end to a shitty movie, Duke comes back to visit Mitch one more time. It turns out that Duke found the real gold, and he wants to share it now. Because he had a change of heart for some reason, because why not?
It is a tolerable movie, but it definitely cheapens the original. There are a few funny moments, but the first one had more laughs, more heart, and was much better. Lame sequels are a Hollywood tradition.
Critically Rated at 8/17
criticallyrated 