David Speegle’s review published on Letterboxd:
A completely unnecessary sequel, and a near 2 hour one at that. If Blazing Saddles were made in 1991, we surely would have gotten a Blazing Saddles 2. John Lovitz is actually the main bright spot here for me, despite having no connection to part one.
I was disappointed that they made Daniel Stern into a complete loser at the beginning again like they essentially erased any progress he made in the first movie. And what happened to Helen Slater?
Anyway, it takes way too long to get back into the saddle so to speak, and once we do, we get a lot of slapstick that feels directionless compared to the first one. I also didn’t like the Curly twist, cheap stunt material, but they had to get Palance into the movie somehow. And having lived on a ranch for 3 years, I’m positive you can’t domesticate a cow and make them go jogging with you.