Caddyshack II (1988)

Very Cool!!!

Thanks for the memories!

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Caddy Shack II pretty much bombed for many of the reasons already mentioned by those here who already panned it. And I agree that it's essentially the story, not the actor's fault as the cast comprises of good actors, but this was not enough to save it. Those who opted out of doing the sequel like Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray chose wisely and avoided this cinematic flop. If it wasn't for Chevy Chase reprising his role as Ty Webb, this movie would have ZERO connection to the original, but despite this, Caddy Shack II is still faaaaar removed from the original.The fist major flaw, which totally threw the movie for me is the congruence - it's painfully obvious that Bushwood Country Club is in a entirely different locale than the first movie. It is my understanding that the first Caddy Shack was filmed at a country club in Florida, and the entrance gates of the club shot on Sunset Blvd - so would it have been that complicated to at least send a second unit film crew to the original locations to at least capture various footage to use in Caddy Shack 2? And while you all are at it, get some shots of Ty Webb's Zen pad, as he never lived in a castle on a mountain. Seriously. Both the club locale and where Ty Webb lived ruined it. And the only reason I stuck it out watching is for Ty, who was quite the ladies man in the first Caddy Shack, but totally came across like a creep to women in II.But in final - Caddy Shack II story line was literally a re-hash of the first version; country club vs.. Real estate developer. WTF? I could continue my rant of other things gone horribly wrong about Caddy Shack II - but I think the other contributors at IMDb.com have it covered.

As just about everyone agrees, this is a curate's egg of a movie, namely good in spots. The problem, of course, lies with the script which is neither as funny nor as inventive as the writers, the players, the producers and the director so very obviously think it is. I also blame the editor. The Warner Brothers DVD runs 99 minutes and should have been cut down to 89 minutes at the very, very most. The sticking point, of course, is which scenes to cut. For a starter, we have far too many unsympathetic characters and these are made up of just about the entire male cast! And personally, I didn't take to the animation sequences with Mr. Gopher either. They were well staged, but I didn't think they were particularly amusing. When you are editing a movie – and I have enjoyed some experience in this field – you have to ask yourself, "Is this scene really necessary?" Preferably, each scene should advance the plot or reveal some aspect of the characters, and yet be amusing, gripping or suspenseful in itself. This simple dictum was not followed in this film. I'm sure the producers – and there are three of them, would you believe – said to themselves, "Everyone who saw the original Caddyshack will want to see this one too, so it really doesn't matter!" Available on an excellent Warner Brothers DVD. Incidentally, the short Bugs Bunny sequence is missing from this DVD.

This movie is a blatant attack at high society. It is a very left wing movie at attacks the conservative, prejudice ideas of the rich. The movie is based around a building developer of mixed origin who is building a low cost apartment block in a very upper class district of an unnamed city. The residents resent this because they do not what lower class people living among them so they push for an injunction, based on a historical horse shed which is only seventy years old, to have the development stopped.The daughter of the developer is the member of a country club in the area that is also frequented by the upper class people of the area. She is welcomed among them, but her father does not like these people. Instead he prefers to play poker with the builders and loose so that they might have extra money to take home. He was one of the proletariat who though a lot of hard work managed to become incredibly wealthy, yet he still considers himself one of the proletariat. He does not hoard his money, but is rather willing to loose it.He is contrasted with the rest of the country club. It is a community of people with a lot of money. They are portrayed as the bad guys. They do not want the poor living in their area and will do anything to stop it. They hoard their money and this is seen with the slave auction where $5000 was raised for charity the previous year even though a lot more could have been made. The quote is that the slave auction is held when they feel guilty about the amount of money that they have, yet they are not willing to let go of it. The developer does not consider his money as his security blanket and thus is able to let go of over $110,000 to purchase all of the people. He then puts them to work on the building site: which shows their incompetance when it actually comes to hard work. Stack's comment about not know what work really is like is contrasted with this scene where he simply bumbles everywhere. He claims to know real hard work, but the workers on the building site are true workers. He simply lounges in his exclusive country club.Robert Stack reminds me of Troy McClure from the Simpsons. It is hard to imagine him in anything else other than Unsolved Mysteries (the US version of Australia's Most Wanted, except they also focus on the supernatural). It is funny seeing him playing a role in a movie, and even then it is one of the rich bad guy.It is interesting though to wonder if the makers of this movie really to consider the rich to be like this and are more like the developer, or if they live this way yet criticise the rich for living like that. It makes one wonder if the filmmakers of Caddyshack II are in fact hypocrits or not.

i actually almost liked this this movie.i thought it was witty and better written.the dialogue is better than the first one.there are also a few amusing moments.i even chuckled a few times.plus,i thought the characters were better and the movie had a better,more substantial story.having said all that,i still didn't think it was a great movie,but at it was watchable,even entertaining at times.the rating for this movie,on this site(3.4/10)is even less than half the rating of the first Caddyshack movie,and i am truly mystified.i will never see the appeal of that movie.as for Caddyshack II,not the best movie every made,but nowhere near the worst,either.my vote for this movie is a 5/10