5.1/10
1,665
12 user 6 critic

The Sting II (1983)

Lonnegan is planning to get back at Gondorff and Hooker for bilking him out of half a million. At the same time Gondorff and Hooker are planning their next caper. And their mark is a man ... See full summary »

Director:

(as Jeremy Paul Kagan)

Writer:

Reviews

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

ON DISC
Nominated for 1 Oscar. See more awards »
Learn more

People who liked this also liked... 

The Sting (1973)
Comedy | Crime | Drama
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8.3/10 X  

In Chicago in September 1936, a young con man seeking revenge for his murdered partner teams up with a master of the big con to win a fortune from a criminal banker.

Director: George Roy Hill
Stars: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw
Xia sheng (1992)
Comedy
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4.8/10 X  
Director: Wen Yun Huang
Stars: Andy Lau, Rosamund Kwan, Simon Lui
Drama | Western | Action
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.5/10 X  

A ruthless rancher, and his gang, use extremely long range rifles to kill the men who kidnapped his infidel wife.

Director: Don Medford
Stars: Oliver Reed, Candice Bergen, Gene Hackman
Sting 2 (Video 2006)
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Director: Charles Okafor
Stars: Charles Okafor, Monalisa Chinda, Yemi Blaq
Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
...
...
...
Veronica
...
...
...
Kid Colors
Kathalina Veniero ...
Blonde with Kid Colors
José Pérez ...
Carlos (Lonnegan's Guard) (as Jose Perez)
...
Gellecher (Lonnegan's 2nd Guard)
...
Lonnegan's Thug (as Frank McCarthy)
Richard C. Adams ...
Lonnegan's Thug
...
Eddie
...
Band Leader
...
Lady Dorsett
...
Band Singer
Edit

Storyline

Lonnegan is planning to get back at Gondorff and Hooker for bilking him out of half a million. At the same time Gondorff and Hooker are planning their next caper. And their mark is a man named Macalinski, who makes Lonnegan look like a pussycat. There con is boxing match and Hooker is the fighter whom they have to make look good but Macalinski needs some convincing, and Hooker is a little rusty. Written by <rcs0411@yahoo.com>

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Taglines:

The con is on... place your bets!

Genres:

Comedy | Crime

Certificate:

PG | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

 »
Edit

Details

Country:

Language:

|

Release Date:

18 February 1983 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

The Next Sting  »

Box Office

Gross:

$6,300,000 (USA)
 »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

Color:

(Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

This movie's working title was 'The Next Sting'. See more »

Goofs

Both times that Hooker rides the Coney Island roller coaster, his cap stays neatly in place, on his head, for the entire ride. In reality, that type of coaster can reach speeds of 60-70mph. His cap should've blown off during the first drop. See more »

Quotes

Fargo Gondorff: [Pointing his finger] Don't you ever call me a hustler.
See more »

Connections

Featured in At the Movies: The Stinkers of 1983 (1983) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
Not that bad
23 February 2004 | by (Chicago) – See all my 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.


25 of 32 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?