User Reviews

Of course "The Sting 2" is nowhere near the classic original. Of course Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason are no Newman and Redford. If you try to watch this film and keep the original completely out of mind you might enjoy it some. On it's own it's only average but not terrible.

Jackie Gleason is ok in his role though he looks rather bored. I thought Mac Davis came off much better and after his terrific dramatic role in "North Dallas Forty" he pulled off comedy fairly well. I wish he had done more with his acting career. Oliver Reed is just right as the bad guy and it is a reminder that Reed was almost always worth watching in even the worst of films ("Venom" being a prime example).

The big problem with "Sting 2" is the script which is odd seeing it was written by David S. Ward who wrote the Oscar winning original. The big difference is that when the first film came out 10 years earlier the surprises were fresh and all the cons were not revealed until the end. Here there's a con in virtually every scene so the audience is conditioned to not believe what they have just seen. It takes away from the true surprises that come.

All in all there are worse movies to see. Lovers of the original should just steer clear but others may enjoy it. It's a mild diversion and nothing more.

The first movie is a masterpiece. This movie isn't as bad as to have a zero percent on rotten tomatoes. I enjoyed the new characters and the con has a nice twist at the end. Terri Garr and Jackie Gleason are really good. The story is decent and it's a fun popcorn film.

THE STING was an absolute masterpiece! I loved that movie when it was in the theaters in 1974. I loved the movie when it was re-released and I got the movie on VHS and later on DVD.

THE STING II was, by comparison, a dismal disappointment. While watching THE STING II, I tried to imagine what the movie would've been like if we had Paul Newman and Robert Redford in the starring roles. With their acting skills, their unique chemistry (they just seem to complement each other), and their influence on refining their roles, the movie would had been much better. But it still would've fallen short of THE STING.

But on its own merit, it was really a pretty good movie. If you take a moment to forget about Paul Newman and Robert Redford (who together ignited a chemistry that made them so likable, even as "bad guys" as they did earlier in BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID), you have Mac Davis, who was a good actor, back on the silver screen after his previous movie which was quite successful. And you have Jackie Gleason, known as "the Great One", a name that was very well earned.

But in THE STING II, Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis were definitely cast in the wrong roles. No matter how great these actors were, they were not and could never had taken the place of Paul Newman & Robert Redford.

On the other hand, Paul Newman and Robert Redford could never take the place of Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis.

Try to imagine Paul Newman portraying Ralph Kramden on THE HONEYMOONERS or try to imagine Robert Redford trying to sing "Baby Don't Get Hooked on Me" and you'll see what I mean!

Dismal follow up to the Oscar winner with Gleason and Davis poorly attempting to ignite the same flame as Newman and Redford as con men looking to get well and rich. Malden is laughable as a tough guy. Reed is no Robert Shaw by any means and it shows. Garr is passable, but she looks bored with David S. Ward's script, who oddly enough, wrote the script to the Oscar winner. What happened? While the score is catchy, the rest of the film is quite embarassing at times.

...just kidding. This movie is the lamest sequel I've ever seen. By lame I don't mean stupid or worthless, but just, well, injured. This little guy was sick from script to screen, and the only redeeming piece this film has to offer is the music, which is actually very well done.

If you're an avid fan of The Sting, I recommend seeing this *only* to reinforce how good of a pair Redford and Newman were together. Mac Davis is a freaking hick for crying out loud. The casting geniuses behind this mess must be kicking themselves. Redford had small-time charm as a grifter, but Davis is nothing more than a small-town bum. Jackie Gleason, in a surprise casting move, becomes Hooker's father's age. Really? They go from friends in the first film to a parent-child relationship in the second. Gleason is a grandpa and Davis has been reduced to a brainless child with a country accent.

The editing is pretty miserable as well. If you happen to see this film, pay special attention to the scene where Hooker and Eddie go to the pen to see Gondorff--as the taxi pulls away, you can see the camera in the car's reflection! Amateurs.

Teri Garr? Well, she's Teri Garr, and if you've seen her in most things you'll know that she's the same character. Whoever told her she could act was lying through his/her teeth. Check out a computer game she lends her "talents" to--The Black Dahlia--to see how limited her range is.

Well, I give this film a 3/10--the set design was good and the music was quite good. Everything else adds up to a miserable experience that made me cringe every time I heard Mac Davis speak.

That tells you something about the "quality" of this movie . Not only it's a unwanted sequel , but also a pointless one . The original director and stars didn't wanted to waste their time and reputation for this made-for-cash-only sequel. They were right. It was impossible for the sequel to be better than original , hell , it would be hard to even come close to that level quality. Yet , here we have a sequel that belongs to the long list of unwanted sequels.

The opening title cards are great , even if they are obviously ripping off the original. The set design is good and the music by Lalo Schiffrin is the best thing in the whole movie (it was nominated for Oscar). Unfortunately that's all the good things I can say about "The Sting 2" (aka "The next sting").

Gone is Gorge Roy Hill as the director and instead of him we have unknown Jeremy Paul Kagan . He doesn't destroy the movie with his direction , but doesn't help it either. Gone are also Robert Redford and Paul Newman . Here we have Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason . Mac Davis isn't charming , but irritating . He behaves like a village idiot and while I'm not crazy about Redford I missed him . Gleason does a better job, he is believable as smart and charming con artist. He's no Newman, but he gives a decent performance. The strange thing is the change of relationship between main hero's : from friendship in the first movie to a father-son relationship in the sequel.

We also have here Teri Garr and Karl Malden who gave rather bad performances.

David S. Ward , the writer of the original is also the writer here. I guess they paid him A LOT of money. It doesn't change the fact that the screenplay lacks inspiration . All the dialogue and twists are tired and clumsy. Ward even tries to unnecessary complicate the screenplay which results in a "he thought that I thought that he didn't know that I know" ending.

It's a awful sequel , just awful . Avoid it . I give it 1/10.

sequels often disappoint and are often the poor relation of the first film. However, this is a very under-rated, well written and acted sequel. It had me guessing until the end and had me thinking about what happened several hours after it had ended, normally a good sign for me of a compelling, interesting movie. Completely different cast from the first film but there are no B-listers here. Sets were authentic for the 1940's too and in those days, low-level boxing bouts were ripe with tales of corruption and allegations of fighters taking dives on the whims of unscrupulous gamblers and the movie set the scene perfectly in my opinion. Ignore the low IMDb rating, its more significant for me that there are very few votes so in statistical terms, the sampling is too low. If you are after a cleverly done, fast moving tale about grifting and the art of the con that acts as a fine compliment to the original film, this ones for you!

Abysmal.

But a one-word review is not allowed, so let me reiterate how horrible this sequel is, going so far as to make you NOT want to watch the far superior original film. This is a shame, because The Sting is one of the best films ever made.

Do yourself a favor and skip this trash.

This film suffers from being associated with the original, which is a better movie, but it's quite enjoyable on it's own.

First let's talk about what it doesn't have:

It doesn't have the Marvin Hamlish music that set the tone for the original film. Gleason is a poor substitute for Newman -> FARGO Gondorf?? oh come on now. Davis is no Redford-> JAKE Hooker??? Puhleese! The screenplay is a plagerized version of the original - Ward changed the names to protect the innocent and try to ruse the audience - he failed. The direction is sedimentary instead of snappy like the original.

I finally got around to seeing this picture after hearing all the awful things about it; but come on ---- it got an Oscar Nomination for the horrible music in the film. Universal should feel lucky they got that.

The only other thing I can say is that with all the QUALITY films that have been lost over time like THE PATRIOT (1929) and THE WAY OF ALL FLESH (1927), Why couldn't somebody have flushed this one down the toilet?????

Good acting. Good story, but a little confusing at times. Very good photography. Too true of the dark side to be funny. No laughs, but none desired (I presume).

"The Sting II" is one one of those movies you wonder why it was made. Nothing about it comes even close to the original. The cast is likable but not up to the caliber of the first movie. Because of the first movie, there are no real surprises in "The Sting II". We know what kind of movie to expect. The sets look good but they give off the vibe of a made-tv movie of that era. "The Sting II" does have a couple of nice moments but it's the cast that makes worth the effort.

You'll forget all about Newman and Redford once this picture starts and you see Gleason and Davis take over the characters. I think if it weren't for the original this might have swept the Academy Awards, including a very deserved Oscar for Teri Garr. Gleason is the definitive Gondorff! Davis, hot off his success in "North Dallas Forty" charms his way through another great performance as Hooker. With Oliver Reed and Karl Malden one wonders if we'll ever see such caliber of actors in the same room again, let alone the same film. Wow! Sorry, none of this is true...this is a Sting...too.

I loved the first film, but when I saw that there had been a sequel, I was suspicious: normally, they are always much weaker than the originals. And so it was! This film is nothing more than a pale shadow of its predecessor. It attempts to follow up the story of the con artists from the first film, with a script set four to five years later, however it is a much weaker, disjointed, conventional and predictable story. It's not really worth summarizing: suffice it to say that the crooks are back to avenge a comrade who was killed.

The cast is completely different from the original film, and that was one of the first red flags for me, even before the start. If the first film was a nest of first-rate artists like Robert Shaw, Robert Redford or Paul Newman, this film relies on weaker actors because the first ones didn't want to return to the project. And my red flags raised higher when I saw that it was another director, Jeremy Kagan. I don't know him, but I wasn't impressed with his work here.

When we talk about the actors, the best we have is Jackie Gleason. He's not great, but he does a good job, with commitment and some talent, that deserves a very positive note. Mac Davis is much less successful, not going much beyond average. The same can be said of Karl Malden and Teri Garr, who do not shine in their roles. It's very little and doesn't meet the expectations at all, especially those of the public who saw the original film.

Technically, the film shines due to its cinematography, good color and initial credits, which are a nod to the original film. This was very enjoyable and gave the film a really nice family comedy feel. I also liked most of the sets and costumes, as well as the period recreation. The problem is the soundtrack. If the first film used intelligently a series of melodies by Scott Joplin, one of the great composers in vogue at the time, this film was completely unable to do a similar exercise. However, the original soundtrack made by Lalo Schiffrin was good enough to deserve an Oscar nomination. The only nomination, which is still another bad note if we consider that the first film was nominated ten times and "cleaned" the auditorium by taking seven statuettes.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I think part two was even better than part one. That's probably a blasphemous statement considering how good The Sting was, but this was at least equally good.

The Sting was clever, broad in scope, and well executed as a movie and as a con. Part two was all of that and I'd say even more clever. It certainly was more risky.

Of course, with a movie like this you're looking for the loose ends. Where did they slip up so I can poke holes in it? You have this elaborate con being orchestrated by Fargo Gondorff (Jackie Gleason); he has Gus Macalinski (Karl Malden) as his mark but then there's a bogey in Lonnegan (Oliver Reed) that could blow the whole thing and/or kill everybody. There is an unknown in Veronica (Teri Garr) whom you don't know what side she plays for, and a potbellied cop that could be as big a problem as any. In the middle of it all is Jake Hooker (Mac Davis) who is just trying to do his part.

Like any good heist/score movie we, the audience, aren't given too much information throughout. We have just enough to know the ruse and the major players. You know that the con centers around a fixed boxing match and that's really all you know. You have to patiently wait as everything else develops and plays out. I thought it was masterful. This was a more than adequate follow up to the first.

I can't figure out how I made Hollywood so angry that it created The Sting 2, an anti-Sting, unfunny, dull, mouth-breathingly stupid. I actually made the free-will choice to see this trash at a drive-in theatre. I'd say it was back in my drinking days, but I'm not an alcoholic. Go figure.

The good performers looked embarrassed and the non-actors looked like . . . non-actors. I guess the movie got the green light because somebody's nephew worked in the Universal props and wardrobe department, and needed work to justify his continued employment.

I hope the putz got fired anyway.

I sat through this bilge in a noisy thunderstorm. I could barely see the screen and the sound was overwhelmed by the crashboombang of the storm.

In other words, I knew the movie was there, but I missed big chunks of it due to the rain and lightning.

Thank you Mother Nature.