Michelle Ridley The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

eric262003 As a protocol to those who are top-notch Hollywood performers, they must always make the impression that their respected characters they choose must always be bigger than they really seem, to really feel like they're not just playing the part, however living the roles that's given to them. That also means getting a better perspective of who they are and what makes them stand above everyone else. "Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory" presents an eccentric view of where the performers contribute to the movie more than the people behind the scenes, giving the viewers the sense that there is something more to these characters than what's handed out to them. The writing feels half-done, the direction meanders everywhere but the performances are provocative. The opening scenes take place in 1950 as a lawyer named Charles Phalen (Bradley Whitford) is greeted by an elderly man named Brushy Bill Roberts (Emilio Estevez) who claims to be the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid and now dying wants to come clean with the Governor of New Mexico and wants to be dismissed for the murders of 21 men. When the law maker rebuffs at the geezer's plead, the old timer threatens him with a gun. That doesn't seem eligible for a pardon. but is Brushy Bill really Billy the Kid? For proof, Phalen asks Bill if he's got any kind of scars? The geriatric has scars, but psychic ones and so begins a near ninety-minute flashback. "Young Guns II" is just another retelling in another fan-fiction folklore in rewriting the history of the legend that is Billy the Kid like so many others out there like "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid", and "The Left-Handed Gun" plus an opera under the penmanship of Aaron Copland. This retelling indicates that that Billy was never a formed or a person lacking in knowledge, but a man who can fire range spot-on, but didn't have the skills to lead a gang. There are so many camera close-ups where he looks so boyish, he looks like like he's not old enough to drink. Acted again by Emilio Estavez, he gives Billy that innocent child-like visage that he seems like the litter of the group rather than leader which includes the returning Doc Scurlock (Kiefer Sutherland), Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips), new recruits which includes "Arkansas" ave Rudabaugh (Christian Slater) and Pat Garrett (William L. Petersen) who looks more older and more disheveled. This would've been a more authentic Western if they would have cast more experienced performers into the mix like Burt Lancaster, Charles Bronson or Anthony Quinn, here we see what looks like kids playing cowboy with their little toy guns. Westerns were a dying genre in the 1980's and 1990's and with the release of "Young Guns" in 1988, these young performers with their appeal at the time helped reintroduced the genre to the generation X crowd at the time, this movie was the unquestionable choice to launch a sequel. Though he returns to write the sequel, John Fusco's script tends to touch upon all the scenarios that are commonplace in Western movies which at times seems to meander. There's the scenes at the bordello, the clueless ambush at the hillsides, even the final showdown where Pat Garrett and his troop square off against the gang is a letdown. What was the attraction to the Western genre anyway? Why were so many of them were made in the golden age of films? Most of them were racist, formulaic, cliched, violent, remorseless so what was the fuss? Because in those days, films had very limited genres in terms of action and because the advertising and marketing on toys and action figures with a Western theme attracted kids (mostly boys) were common in those days. To me, it was just a cringe induced two hours of cowboys killing Native people and feeling good about it. The only difference here is that in this movie, there's a feeling of remorse for their cruelty and genocide. In the days of Gary Cooper and John Wayne, it was celebrated. Here it's a different story. In this movie, I could not pave out the mental scarring towards the characters. The impression I got was that the antagonists were just led to the wrong direction with a more reliable leader, they could have been better individuals. I only see these guys as rebels not by choice but by poor decision making which led them to hanging with the wrong people. Sure the physical atmosphere has Western spelled all over it, and there are times when the characters have something going for them, but the script never indicates what it is. The old timer narrates the story with a geezer husky voice detailing about the opaque events from the Old Frontier, which is what we get in this uninspiring sequel.

Maziun The first "Young guns" movie was hardly a classic , but definitely a good movie worth watching. It was aimed at MTV teenagers and quite a refreshing take on western. It also made enough money back in the 80's (when western movies weren't really popular) for studio to make a sequel. The audience like the simple revenge story and charm of the young stars of that movie.This movie lacks solid story. The first one had a good motivation for our heroes – revenge. Here they are running and arguing between each other , but the whole movie lacks a hook. The conflict between Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid is too thin to keep the viewer interested. The movie seems to more like a collection of short scenes (sometimes good ones) instead of well written story. "Young guns 2" doesn't go anywhere from the beginning to the end. I also didn't care if the story of Roberts was real or not.The movie is also rather awfully directed by Geoff Murphy. The pacing is dreadful. The whole movie feels like it's 3 hours long , despite a rather normal running time. It makes the movie hard to watch and boring on re-watch. The movie lacks the freshness of the original."Young guns 2" is mainly concentrated on Emilio Estevez ("Stakeout") , who is walking the thin line of being likable and annoying here. Kiefer Sutherland ("The lost boys") and Lou Diamond Philips ("Stand and deliver") don't really have much to play. The newcomers – Christian Slater ("True romance") , William Petersen ("To live and die in LA") and James Coburn ("Iron cross") aren't really interesting.The music by Alan Silvestri is nice and the movie has some nice scenes, jokes and dialogues. The songs by Jon Bon Jovi are good too ("Blaze of glory" anyone ?). It doesn't change the fact that this is a very forced sequel made without any idea for good story. I give it 3/10.

classicsoncall Across a span of decades, the character of Billy the Kid has been portrayed in film by quite the eclectic group of well known actors - Roy Rogers, Robert Taylor, Bob Steele, Buster Crabbe and even Paul Newman in an early film role, "The Left Handed Gun". I'm repeating myself from other reviews I've written when I say that for my money, Emilio Estevez does the best job of bringing Billy the Kid to life on the big screen. He just has this ego-maniacal way of portraying The Kid's malice, but with a charisma that's kind of appealing when he's taking it to his enemies."Young Guns II" isn't a great picture, but it's generally a fine follow up to the original "Young Guns", seeing as how a sequel was going to be made to capitalize on the first. I liked the idea of book-ending the story with the Brushy Bill Roberts appearance to add a bit of a mystique to the legend. I'll have to read up some more about that whole piece of history, since it's not that well known. I only came to learn about it when I saw this picture the first time back in the Nineties. I guess it's an interesting controversy to get wrapped up in, but I'm not that invested in the idea to get all worked up about it.What I liked about the story was the way it brought in some of the historical nuance to the legend of Billy. The Kid made it a point to say that the Lincoln County War was a merchant war, not a range war. It had all to do with commerce and the awarding of government contracts to supply beef to the Army. There was also the mention of the other names Billy used throughout his life. William Henry McCarty, was Billy's birth name, and he used the name of a step-father, William Antrim as well, though not often. In fact, Billy used a number of aliases throughout his outlaw career, presumably to conceal his true identity while on the run; William H. Bonney is the name that survives history the most memorably.Returning for the sequel in notable support roles are Kiefer Sutherland as 'Doc' Spurlock, and Lou Diamond Phillips as the Mexican-Indian Chavez. I wasn't particularly fond of William Petersen's casting as Sheriff Pat Garret, he didn't seem gritty enough in the role to take on the assignment from the Governor. Lew Wallace by the way, in real life was also the author of 'Ben-Hur', an interesting bit of trivia that totally astounded me when I found out he had a history with Billy The Kid as governor of New Mexico.As with most of these Hollywood treatments based on history, purists will take issue with the fictional elements thrown in to make the story engaging for a modern audience. If you can get beyond that, this one is entertaining enough for Western fans with some catchy dialog and skilled cinematography. As an added bonus, you have James Coburn in a neat cameo, and Jane Wright with that slinky Lady Godiva bit as she mounts up and heads out of White Oaks. I hope it wasn't too cold that day.

qormi This movie can't even be classified as a "Western". Emilio Estevez was not convincing. Then, we were subjected to viewing his naked butt. The guy is just not a good actor...Then, someone is always calling after him...."Beellaaay...Beellaaay..." Not, Billy; Beellaaay. Puhleeze. Then, there's the part where Lou Diamond Phillips' character gets stabbed right through his forearm. Can you imagine the pain and bone breakage associated with such an injury? The severed nerves, tendons..the inevitable infection? Nope. The knife was simply pulled out without so much as a wince. Then, he's just fine in the next scene, as if nothing had happened. Nobody was convincing in this film. It just seemed like a bunch of short Hollywood types hamming it up.