IMDb > The Sting II (1983) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Sting II
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Sting II More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 13 reviews in total 

19 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

I liked it.

8/10
Author: jsford2 from Birmingham, Alabama
16 May 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie lacks the polish of the original but I thought it was very entertaining. How can you go wrong with Jackie Gleason? Mac Davis played the confused confidence man to a T. He always seemed to be just a little behind everyone else. This movie seems to share characters names with the original "Sting" but the names could have been completely different and probably should have been as this would have let the movie stand or fall on it's own merit. I saw this movie actually before I saw the original and maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much more than some of the other reviews that I have read. The double crossing and conning the con men seem to fall into place easily and being naive as I am, I was surprised when Torres shows up at the train station for his cut. I'll just say this, This is one of those movies that I always watch when I find on TV when channel surfing, no matter where I come in, I always watch it to the end.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Not that bad

6/10
Author: jrs-8 from Chicago
23 February 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

not a bad sequel

7/10
Author: (tottenhamtillidie@gmail.com) from sacramento, ca
30 November 2007

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

The Sting II

5/10
Author: clemo-1 from United Kingdom
4 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

On its own this film isn't bad but if you compare it to the original then you will be disappointed. I only wanted to see it as I was such a fan of the original anyway, but the thing that really annoyed me was why were the first names of Gondorf and Hooker changed to Fargo? and Jake? respectively. This sequel follows the same plot as the original in that a good friend 'kid colours' is killed so revenge must be taken by way of a con. Kid Colours however is no Luther Coleman and as a viewer I couldn't have cared less as we were never given an insight into the character as we were with Coleman. When Luther was killed, you felt sorry for his family and were immediately drawn into the plot for revenge. The hook was lame and if Macalinsky was such a feared gangster he wouldn't have allowed 'Fargo' to crack on to a girl he fancied in a club that he owned now would he? The movie got progressively worse from there. The best bit was when the mark wanted to see Jake fight and so the grifters managed to gain the use of a gym in a similar way to the originals taking over of the Western Union office. I don't think it was as predictable as some make out but 'Fargos' daughter was obvious, I'm afraid.

After watching a truly great film you feel as if you were a part of what you were actually watching and wonder what became of the characters long after the final credits have rolled. That is how the original made me feel but the sequel was 'just a movie' and nothing else.

All in all not a bad film but when compared to the classic it follows it is nowhere near as good.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

The sting is on but I think it is the audience that is getting the sting!

5/10
Author: (michael_mckenna@ctonline.it) from Italy
13 October 2005

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The con is on the audience

4/10
Author: TrevorAclea from London, England
23 June 2008

What do you do when you've made one of the biggest hits of all time but no amount of money can tempt your cast or director back? You pay the writer whatever he asks (then pay him even more not to direct after his directorial debut, Cannery Row, flops), hope that no-one will notice that Paul Newman and Robert Redford have turned into Jackie Gleason (well, if you can't get The Hustler, hire Minnesota Fats) and Mac Davis and put a II after the title. Or at least that's what Universal did in 1983 with The Sting II (aka The Next Sting), having learned nothing from the box-office failure of Butch and Sundance: The Early Days. One of that surprisingly large band of sequels to blockbusters that time has completely forgotten, it has the feel of a TV pilot with slightly better production values and little beyond the basic plot device. Curiously even the first names of many of the characters are changed – Henry Gondorff becomes Fargo Gondorff and Johnny Hooker becomes Jake Hooker: why is a mystery since they're clearly meant to be the same characters since Doyle Lonnergan is out to kill them (though he's undergone a complete character transformation in Oliver Reed's literate incarnation).

This time it's a boxing scam involving Karl Malden's brash racketeer and Teri Garr's conwoman, but the con's mostly on any unsuspecting audiences expecting any of the style or ingenuity of the original. It's the kind of film that did no-one any favours: director Jeremy Paul Kagan was once the next big thing until this flopped spectacularly, Jackie Gleason went on to another forgotten and unwanted sequel, Smokey and the Bandit 3 while Mac Davis disappeared into guest spots on TV and living off the royalties for In the Ghetto. David S. Ward shows that he could have been a serviceable b-movie scribe at one of the smaller studios in the 30s, but it really needs the kind of ensemble a Warners Bros. could have given it in the 30s – Cagney, O'Brien, Allen Jenkins, Joan Blondell et al – to have ever had a chance to pass muster. The opening title cards, however, are things of real beauty and it's a shame they have to end and the movie has to start

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Good but not a "Classic"

7/10
Author: anonymous from Texarkana, Texas
17 October 1998

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).

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

The Sting II

Author: Tim Cox from Marietta, OH
18 April 1999

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Uncelebrated or remembered.

Author: oscar-35 from working in Movieland
27 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*Spoiler/plot- The Sting II, 1983. A group of con artists wish to revenge a friend's death by a mob boss and concoct a 'Sting' to teach the crime boss a lesson by taking his money and punishing him.

*Special Stars- Jackie Gleason, Mac Davis, Terri Garr, Karl Malden, Oliver Reed.

*Theme- Your friends are your best help.

*Trivia/location/goofs- Sequel. Roller Coaster scenes filmed at Santa Cruz Beach Amusement park. Look out for: The famous band leader Harry James plays a band leader. Cassandra (Elivra mistress of the Dark) Peterson is the detective Sargent O'Malley's girlfriend.

*Emotion- I love confidence tricksters films: 'Flim Flam Man', 'The Sting' and others. Unfortunately this film is more like a TV movie or B-movie 'Sting' version. The casting, acting writing, and staging is clearly second rate. Watching this plot, you can obviously see that the producers tried to duplicate everything good from the first film element by element. It's just too plodding, pedestrian, and boring. Another sad and bad film sequel that is uncelebrated or remembered.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Fans of the original pretend that this sequel doesn't exist…

1/10
Author: Maziun from Poland
29 September 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history