The Sting II(1983)
PG
02/18/1983 (US)Comedy, Crime1h 42m4.7
"The con is on... place your bets!"
Overview
Hooker and Gondorf pull a con on Macalinski, an especially nasty mob boss with the help of Veronica, a new grifter. They convince this new victim that Hooker is a somewhat dull boxer who is tired of taking dives for Gondorf. There is a ringer. Lonigan, their victim from the first movie, is setting them up to take the fall.
Jeremy Kagan
Director
David S. Ward
Writer
Dean Riesner
Writer
Top Billed Cast
Where to Watch
Rent
Buy
Powered by JustWatch
Popularity Trend
Last 30 Days
This chart shows the popularity trend over the past 30 days.
Media
The Sting II trailer
Trailer
Secret Meeting on the Rollercoaster
Clip
Social
F
A review by Filipe Manuel Neto
2.0
Written on September 13, 2023
**We can almost say that any similarity with the first “Sting” is a pure coincidence.**
I loved the first film, but when I saw that there had been a sequel, I was suspicious: normally, they are always much weaker than the originals. And so it was! This film is nothing more than a pale shadow of its predecessor. It attempts to follow up the story of the con artists from the first film, with a script set four to five years later, however it is a much weaker, disjointed, conventional and predictable story. It's not really worth summarizing: suffice it to say that the crooks are back to avenge a comrade who was killed.
The cast is completely different from the original film, and that was one of the first red flags for me, even before the start. If the first film was a nest of first-rate artists like Robert Shaw, Robert Redford or Paul Newman, this film relies on weaker actors because the first ones didn't want to return to the project. And my red flags raised higher when I saw that it was another director, Jeremy Kagan. I don't know him, but I wasn't impressed with his work here.
When we talk about the actors, the best we have is Jackie Gleason. He's not great, but he does a good job, with commitment and some talent, that deserves a very positive note. Mac Davis is much less successful, not going much beyond average. The same can be said of Karl Malden and Teri Garr, who do not shine in their roles. It's very little and doesn't meet the expectations at all, especially those of the public who saw the original film.
Technically, the film shines due to its cinematography, good color and initial credits, which are a nod to the original film. This was very enjoyable and gave the film a really nice family comedy feel. I also liked most of the sets and costumes, as well as the period recreation. The problem is the soundtrack. If the first film used intelligently a series of melodies by Scott Joplin, one of the great composers in vogue at the time, this film was completely unable to do a similar exercise. However, the original soundtrack made by Lalo Schiffrin was good enough to deserve an Oscar nomination. The only nomination, which is still another bad note if we consider that the first film was nominated ten times and “cleaned” the auditorium by taking seven statuettes.
I loved the first film, but when I saw that there had been a sequel, I was suspicious: normally, they are always much weaker than the originals. And so it was! This film is nothing more than a pale shadow of its predecessor. It attempts to follow up the story of the con artists from the first film, with a script set four to five years later, however it is a much weaker, disjointed, conventional and predictable story. It's not really worth summarizing: suffice it to say that the crooks are back to avenge a comrade who was killed.
The cast is completely different from the original film, and that was one of the first red flags for me, even before the start. If the first film was a nest of first-rate artists like Robert Shaw, Robert Redford or Paul Newman, this film relies on weaker actors because the first ones didn't want to return to the project. And my red flags raised higher when I saw that it was another director, Jeremy Kagan. I don't know him, but I wasn't impressed with his work here.
When we talk about the actors, the best we have is Jackie Gleason. He's not great, but he does a good job, with commitment and some talent, that deserves a very positive note. Mac Davis is much less successful, not going much beyond average. The same can be said of Karl Malden and Teri Garr, who do not shine in their roles. It's very little and doesn't meet the expectations at all, especially those of the public who saw the original film.
Technically, the film shines due to its cinematography, good color and initial credits, which are a nod to the original film. This was very enjoyable and gave the film a really nice family comedy feel. I also liked most of the sets and costumes, as well as the period recreation. The problem is the soundtrack. If the first film used intelligently a series of melodies by Scott Joplin, one of the great composers in vogue at the time, this film was completely unable to do a similar exercise. However, the original soundtrack made by Lalo Schiffrin was good enough to deserve an Oscar nomination. The only nomination, which is still another bad note if we consider that the first film was nominated ten times and “cleaned” the auditorium by taking seven statuettes.
