pepekwa 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!

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!

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.

Coxer99 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.