The Sting II (1983)

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Blistering performances.

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!

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.

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.