Such a frustrating disappointment

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

...just kidding. This movie is the lamest sequel I've ever seen. By lame I don't mean stupid or worthless, but just, well, injured. This little guy was sick from script to screen, and the only redeeming piece this film has to offer is the music, which is actually very well done.If you're an avid fan of The Sting, I recommend seeing this *only* to reinforce how good of a pair Redford and Newman were together. Mac Davis is a freaking hick for crying out loud. The casting geniuses behind this mess must be kicking themselves. Redford had small-time charm as a grifter, but Davis is nothing more than a small-town bum. Jackie Gleason, in a surprise casting move, becomes Hooker's father's age. Really? They go from friends in the first film to a parent-child relationship in the second. Gleason is a grandpa and Davis has been reduced to a brainless child with a country accent. The editing is pretty miserable as well. If you happen to see this film, pay special attention to the scene where Hooker and Eddie go to the pen to see Gondorff--as the taxi pulls away, you can see the camera in the car's reflection! Amateurs. Teri Garr? Well, she's Teri Garr, and if you've seen her in most things you'll know that she's the same character. Whoever told her she could act was lying through his/her teeth. Check out a computer game she lends her "talents" to--The Black Dahlia--to see how limited her range is.Well, I give this film a 3/10--the set design was good and the music was quite good. Everything else adds up to a miserable experience that made me cringe every time I heard Mac Davis speak.

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.

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.