I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Absolutely the worst movie.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I loved the first Caddyshack so when I saw this movie for sale on DVD at the now-gone Liquidation World, I asked my grandma to buy it. I watched it all the way through and it felt like I was watching a movie that shouldn't exist in this universe. The only returning cast member was Chevy Chase reprising his role as Ty Webb.It felt like a movie that wasn't supposed to exist. I have no idea where grandma's DVD of this thing is now, probably in a box gathering dust in my grandpa's bedroom or god-knows-where after it was donated to Salvation Army.

I very much wish that I could give this movie a zero, or a negative number. The talents of these enormously talented actors - Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon, Randy Quaid, Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd were enormously wasted in this film that took away 98 minutes of my precious life. Were the writers, producers and the director of this tragedy on some kind of hallucinogenic drugs, or were they just so lacking in talent that they could not produce a much, much, much better sequel than this disaster??? I feel like I totally deserve to receive every penny of the money that I wasted going to see this bad, really bad flop of a film. I expected a much better film than this monstrosity. There is some debate as to which movie made, throughout the history of film is the worst. Well, this "film" puts an end to the debate. It is the worst movie of them all. It was not even slightly funny. In fact, nothing in the movie made me smile, let alone laugh. I will never understand why in the world the big talents I mentioned earlier didn't merely walk away from this movie after reading the script. Even the gopher was UN-funny. It was just another annoyance in this totally rotten tomato of a film.

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.

Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.