The Sting II

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.

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?????

"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.

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).

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.

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.