To me, this movie is perfection.

Simply A Masterpiece

hyped garbage

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

That tells you something about the "quality" of this movie . Not only it's a unwanted sequel , but also a pointless one . The original director and stars didn't wanted to waste their time and reputation for this made-for-cash-only sequel. They were right. It was impossible for the sequel to be better than original , hell , it would be hard to even come close to that level quality. Yet , here we have a sequel that belongs to the long list of unwanted sequels.The opening title cards are great , even if they are obviously ripping off the original. The set design is good and the music by Lalo Schiffrin is the best thing in the whole movie (it was nominated for Oscar). Unfortunately that's all the good things I can say about "The Sting 2" (aka "The next sting").Gone is Gorge Roy Hill as the director and instead of him we have unknown Jeremy Paul Kagan . He doesn't destroy the movie with his direction , but doesn't help it either. Gone are also Robert Redford and Paul Newman . Here we have Mac Davis and Jackie Gleason . Mac Davis isn't charming , but irritating . He behaves like a village idiot and while I'm not crazy about Redford I missed him . Gleason does a better job, he is believable as smart and charming con artist. He's no Newman, but he gives a decent performance. The strange thing is the change of relationship between main hero's : from friendship in the first movie to a father-son relationship in the sequel.We also have here Teri Garr and Karl Malden who gave rather bad performances.David S. Ward , the writer of the original is also the writer here. I guess they paid him A LOT of money. It doesn't change the fact that the screenplay lacks inspiration . All the dialogue and twists are tired and clumsy. Ward even tries to unnecessary complicate the screenplay which results in a "he thought that I thought that he didn't know that I know" ending.It's a awful sequel , just awful . Avoid it . I give it 1/10.

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!

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.

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).