The Sting II Reviews

Page 2 of 2
August 24, 2013
The sequel to its '73 Best Picture winning predecessor is surprisingly better than what to expect when it's without the original cast especially the dynamic duo of Newman and Redford as there are remaining classical magic going around with the characters and the soundtrack. It's good as the first film with the same rating, but a different letter grade, meaning it's not better (it would be if all of the original cast returned). (B+)

(Full review coming soon)
January 26, 2014
lame sequel and a perfect example of a really shitty sequel
½ October 26, 2013
10 ans apres le legendaire premier opus, David S. Ward en a ecrit la suite avec une toute nouvelle equipe technique et un tout nouveau casting. Si le film reste toujours aussi sympathique, Jeremy Kagan ne peut reellement insuffler du neuf dans ce qui devient alors profondement ennuyeux. Jackie Gleason, Mac Davis et Karl Malden ont beau etre bons, rien ne parvient a donner un reel interet au film...
½ June 15, 2012
Worth it for Jackie Gleason.
November 22, 2007
Jackie Gleason steals the movie
August 29, 2011
Better than expected.
½ January 30, 2010
Pretty good movie! I got hooked on it when it just started on HBO. Love the old style movies like this looks like the early 50's I enjoyed it.
½ December 18, 2008
Interesting only because Gleason is in it but also because you get to see Teri Garr grap Mac Davis's Willy.
½ November 20, 2008
Why was this movie made? Gleason & Davis are no Redford and Newman....
½ October 14, 2008
good but not as good as the first!
moviefan1725
Super Reviewer
October 11, 2008
Here's a movie that has no right to work, but somehow it does. Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis play the characters made famous by Paul Newman and Robert Redford...and yet, they don't. While their characters share the same last names, and obviously are meant to be the same characters, they all have different first names. I'm not sure what the intention was, but there you have it. When one of their old con gang is murdered by a mobster (same movitation from the first movie), they reuinte their gang to take him for everything he's worth. They are aided and hampered by the mobster they took for $500,000 years before. The individual performances by the two leads are fine enough, but they have none of the natural chemistry shared by Newman and Redford. Oliver Reed takes over for Robert Shaw as the Chicago banker they originally ripped off, and he has a certain fun with his role as the mystery manipulator of many of the characters. Karl Malden is the new mark, and he gives a good performance as the unknowing target of the con men's plan. Teri Garr is wooden as a 2x4 as Davis' love interest, and the lone woman in the con gang. Many people see this as blasphemy to the original, but while it is not even close to being in the same league as the first film, it's still an enjoyable con game, with its own share of twists and turns. Most of them predictable, but there are a couple of "didn't see that coming" moments. An interseting little distraction, and not nearly the cinematic afterbirth its been made out to be.
July 17, 2007
It was not as good as the first, but it still had the twist in it, plus had a very well put together cast.
½ July 17, 2007
Pointless sequel, and is not a continuation of the original Oscar winner, but rather another story about con artists. The great cast is wasted. Even with good production values, it's still isn't worth it.
May 9, 2007
this was a good sequal
March 27, 2007
If Jackie Gleason is in it, then I will endeavor to find this film, his Smokey And the Bandit films were hilarious.
February 5, 2007
Not as good as the first, but entertaining none the less
½ February 2, 2007
Did not need a sequel
½ December 10, 2006
Weak movie. VERY WEAK
Page 2 of 2