michael_mckenna 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!

jsford2 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.

clemo-1 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.

jrs-8 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.