The Sting II

1983 "The con is on... place your bets!"

The Sting II

4.9 | 1h42m | PG | en | Comedy

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.

Rent / Buy

Buy from $14.99 Rent from $4.99

WATCH FREEFOR 30 DAYS

All Prime Video
Cancel anytime

Watch Now

4.9 | 1h42m | PG | en | Comedy , Crime | More Info

Released: February. 18,1983 | Released Producted By: Universal Pictures , Country: United States of America Budget: 0 Revenue: 0 Official Website:

Synopsis

Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Jackie Gleason , Mac Davis , Teri Garr

Director

Fred Chapman

Producted By

Universal Pictures ,

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.

Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Cast

Jackie Gleason

as Fargo Gondorff

Nothing in Common Izzy & Moe Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 The Sting II The Toy Smokey and the Bandit II Mr. Billion Smokey and the Bandit How Do I Love Thee?

Mac Davis

as Jake Hooker

Where the Red Fern Grows The Definitive Elvis: Elvis and the Colonel For My Daughter's Honor Blackmail The Sting II North Dallas Forty

Teri Garr

as Veronica

Expired Kabluey Aloha Scooby-Doo! Life Without Dick The Wandering Soul Murders Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker Dick Batman Beyond: The Movie Casper Meets Wendy

Reviews

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.

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.

Doc-70 Good acting. Good story, but a little confusing at times. Very good photography. Too true of the dark side to be funny. No laughs, but none desired (I presume).