|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||12 reviews in total|
*** 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.
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.
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!
*** 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
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.
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!
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).
*** 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.
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.
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.
...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.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|