Sting II

This is a movie that I will defend to the end. The problem is that it is tied to an Academy Award winning picture. Yes, different actors play the roles (with different first names) but the film is only "loosely" tied to the original. Jackie Gleason is in dapper form as the ring-leader and he is surrounded by a fine and funny supporting cast. The film uses nostagia in all areas well. It is downright goofy at points but it never tries to be anything more. The scene where Gleason mocks Karl Malden's character is (to me) a classic. Mac Davis is suprisingly good and Teri Garr always makes me smile. I'm glad they put this on DVD for the few fans the film has. Nice widescreen print with a cool trailer. I never said this was a better film than the original. I just think it is unfairly over criticized.

What do you do when you've made one of the biggest hits of all time but no amount of money can tempt your cast or director back? You pay the writer whatever he asks (then pay him even more not to direct after his directorial debut, Cannery Row, flops), hope that no-one will notice that Paul Newman and Robert Redford have turned into Jackie Gleason (well, if you can't get The Hustler, hire Minnesota Fats) and Mac Davis and put a II after the title. Or at least that's what Universal did in 1983 with The Sting II (aka The Next Sting), having learned nothing from the box-office failure of Butch and Sundance: The Early Days. One of that surprisingly large band of sequels to blockbusters that time has completely forgotten, it has the feel of a TV pilot with slightly better production values and little beyond the basic plot device. Curiously even the first names of many of the characters are changed - Henry Gondorff becomes Fargo Gondorff and Johnny Hook*r becomes Jake Hook*r: why is a mystery since they're clearly meant to be the same characters since Doyle Lonnergan is out to kill them (though he's undergone a complete character transformation in Oliver Reed's literate incarnation).

This time it's a boxing scam involving Karl Malden's brash racketeer and Teri Garr's conwoman, but the con's mostly on any unsuspecting audiences expecting any of the style or ingenuity of the original. It's the kind of film that did no-one any favors: director Jeremy Paul Kagan was once the next big thing until this flopped spectacularly, Jackie Gleason went on to another forgotten and unwanted sequel, Smokey and the Bandit 3 while Mac Davis disappeared into guest spots on TV and living off the royalties for In the Ghetto. David S. Ward shows that he could have been a serviceable b-movie scribe at one of the smaller studios in the 30s, but it really needs the kind of ensemble a Warners Bros. could have given it in the 30s - Cagney, O'Brien, Allen Jenkins, Joan Blondell et al - to have ever had a chance to pass muster. The opening title cards, however, are things of real beauty and it's a shame they have to end and the movie has to start

This movie might have been ok if it was a story on its own, rather than trying to be a sequel to "The Sting". First off, how can you possibly replace Redford and Newman? Second and critical, which is really a non-negotiable fact from the first movie - Doyle Lonnegan did NOT KNOW he was stung by Gondorf and Hooker. How could he possibly be out for revenge if he didn't know? Plus, he saw them "die" just before he was pulled out of the club. Even if he realized that he was set up and taken, who would he go after - the dead guys? Changing critical facts from the first movie creates a sequel which makes no sense and does not deserve to associate itself with the original. If you pretend it's a totally unrelated movie with different character names, it's ok - but that's about it.