If your movie has high production values, attractive stars, and doesn't trip over anything major before it ends, most people on this site will start their rating at 7 or 8 stars. That's how low the bar is for a rave. And it's why I don't much care for movies like The Sting. It's idea of film merit is to pre-sell the production so they don't have to worry about people comprehending anything or thinking about much. This movie proves that if you market some star power and a little production design you can trick people into thinking they've seen a great movie. It's so sure that its casting director and designers did a fantastic job, that it fails put much energy into it's characters or story. It's not as well-designed or produced as movies both before and after. It's not too interesting, it's not much fun and though some people describe it as 'funny' I can't name a line I laughed at. It's just an overinflated period piece. Robert Redford, though attractive, seems lifeless and miscast.
The cinematography is much too bright and evenly lit like a TV production. It flattens out the cheap looking exteriors. The whole thing would benefit from a better understanding of noir. Except for a handful of establishing matte shots, the movie is extremely careful not to let much more than fifteen feet of a set into view, producing a claustrophobic feeling. I don't need to see Al Capone in a 1930s Chicago storyline, but not even mentioning him is bizarre. With 7 Oscars wins, The Sting is the classic story of popularity overcoming lack of merit. But I'd bet there is virtually no audience for it that didn't first see it back in the 70s. It may be the least worthy Best Picture winner, but of course there are plenty to choose from.
33 out of 95 found this helpful