Underrated!!!!!!!!!!!

this is a classic example of money over art and great actors selling out. the film is an absolute t.u.r.d.

> This is a very good movie and really isn't a sequel.

But it really wasn't a very good sting. In the end, it was just your everyday scam of paying off the favorite to take a dive. That's not very original.

It seems like about half of the things they did in the movie weren't consistant with being a sting. For example, when you get the target to hand over all the money (i.e., at the betting parlor) any sting will take the money and run. When the victim returns to the office he will find just a bare bulb hanging from the ceiling and some trash. Why the heck were the two perps still there with all of the money?

And I don't really understand the original sting anyway. As I understand it, Mac would bet $400k at 2:1 odds on Jake and Lonnegan bets $1M at a different bookie.

They'd then get a cut from the other bookie. Let's say 30%. If Jake wins, they collect $300k from the bookie but pay Mac $800k. They lose.

If Torrez wins, they get to keep $400k from Mac. But then they have cost the legitimate bookie $1M and he will be pissed off.

The ONLY way they can win is if Mac panics and decides to strong-arm the fake bookie to change the bet.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

i'm with you sexyabibi - while i really enjoyed the original film, I think the sequel works well on its own terms. i think people were hostile towards it because it would inevitably be viewed in comparison to the original, which was held in such high esteem. it's difficult to replace an entire cast that people were already familiar with and not have them object. I'd say if the movie was called "Gondorff's Way" or "Jake and the Fat Man" it would have been better received. Karl Malden is hilarious and Oliver Reed sizzles the screen with his sinister growl. great cast, fun story, good fun.

mugsniffer

Just finished watching this after not having seen it for several years. Granted it didn't win a ton of awards like The Sting, but I found it still to be enjoyable. The tongue-in-cheek humor is what is so funny and you can see in Jackie Gleason's eyes he's having a blast! forget Academy Award drama, this film is just for fun and meant to entertain. Mac Davis shows off his comedic chops with Teri Garr and the Master himslf, The Great One, gets laugh after laugh. Relax and be entertained!!!!

a i a gree. much better than 1st. no1 has less charisma the redofrd

[deleted]

This is absolutely a sequel. And bad.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!

I agree. This is one of those movies I remember seeing all the time on HBO in the '80s (a couple of others were "Looker" and the original "Clash of the Titans"). I think one of the reasons HBO ran those movies endlessly is because they really were genuinely entertaining and people liked them. They weren't movie magic, like "The Godfather" or "Dr. Strangelove" or "The Searchers" or "Singin' in the Rain," but they were just good, watchable films that people generally enjoyed (and were not as expensive to get the rights to as the masterpieces).

This is a film that I really do think only suffers because of comparison to a much beloved predecessor. I'm convinced that if there had never been the "The Sting," the Redford and Newman classic from 1973, and this exact same movie had been produced, it would not be so maligned today. It wouldn't go down among the greats, of course, but it would have been judged purely on its own merits, and would be remembered as a good, if unspectacular period film.