The Sting (1973) User Reviews (382)

Everything's Jake In Second Trip To Well

[slokes · 9/10 · 29 December 2004]

The fix is in, the odds are set, and the boys are ready to play for the big time, both on the screen and behind the camera in this breezy, endlessly entertaining movie classic.

Robert Redford is small-time hustler Johnny Hooker, happy to play the marks in Joliet until the murder of his mentor pushes him to go up against the nastiest mug in Chicago, Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw.) Hooker'd rather ice Lonnegan outright, but will settle for a big con with the help of a slightly wobbly but game scammer named Henry Gondorff, played as only Paul Newman can.

Newman and Redford, along with director George Roy Hill, had a lot riding on this pony, given it was a follow-up to their earlier "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid." To measure up, they had to produce nothing short of another classic. And so they did. "The Sting" won the Best Picture Oscar in 1973, and remains the sentimental favorite among many in choosing between the two films.

Comparing "The Sting" to "Butch Cassidy" is kind of overdone sport, and tempers, as Lonnegan would say, run hot. But you can see why "The Sting" worked as well as it did by looking at how the director and the stars played it differently within the same basic framework as "Butch Cassidy." Newman and Redford are again outlaws and underdogs. Period detail abounds here as it did with "Butch Cassidy," and there's another memorable score amid the proceedings, Scott Joplin rags modernized by Marvin Hamlisch. The score even produced another hit, "The Entertainer," to compare with "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head."

What's different about "The Sting," and what makes it such a classic in its own right, is the way the stars service the plot. In "Butch Cassidy," Newman and Redford's comradeship was the story. Here, the chemistry between the two actors is minimized in favor of spinning a yarn with enough red herrings to feed the Swedish navy. The tale here is better than "Butch Cassidy," which is a more elegiac film with grander cinematography and funnier set pieces. "The Sting" is an edge-of-your-seat caper flick from beginning to end.

You can't really call "The Sting" a comedy. Though there are many laughs, especially when Newman hooks Shaw during a poker game, Hill won't let the audience relax enough for that. What this is is a con game, played on the audience, designed not to cheat but entertain by means of clever hoodwinking and constant misdirection plays.

You'll get no spoilers from me. This is one worth sitting through with no expectations. Five gets you ten you'll enjoy Newman and Redford, and a terrific supporting cast (one advantage over "Butch Cassidy") that includes Charles Durning, Eileen Brennan, Dana Elcar, Harold Gould, and Mr. Hand himself, Ray Walston. There's another familiar face from "Butch Cassidy," Charles Dierkop, Flat Nose Curry in "Butch Cassidy" and Lonnegan's right hand here. The best performance may be Robert Shaw's; he exudes menace aplenty but some humanity, too, when he takes Hooker under his wing after learning he came from the same hard streets of Five Points Lonnegan sprang from.

Terrific period detail, too. The dialogue is great and feels real in its Runyonesque way, while the cons are elaborate and logically played out. Watching this a second time is especially fun because once you know how the plot goes down, you find yourself catching clues you missed the first time, and enjoying the film even more for them.

Why didn't Newman and Redford team up again? Certainly there was another good movie for them to partner up in, but as Gondorff would have put it, only chumps don't quit when they're ahead.

The Moral Order Restored

[JamesHitchcock · 9/10 · 15 March 2004]

Johnny Hooker and Luther Coleman are 'grifters' or confidence tricksters in 1930s Chicago. Unknown to them, however, one of their victims works for a vicious local gangster named Doyle Lonnegan, and when Lonnegan finds out what has happened he has Luther murdered. Hooker is not a violent man by nature and admits that he does not know much about killing, but nevertheless wishes to take revenge for his partner's death. He decides that the best way is to hurt Lonnegan's pride by relieving him of some of his wealth. He joins forces with another con man named Henry Gondorff, and together they come up with an elaborate plan, not only to cheat Lonnegan, but also to do it in such a way that he never realises that he has been cheated. The plot unfolds with great ingenuity; until the final denouement the audience are never quite sure which developments are for real and which are part of the elaborate scheme.

Crime thrillers set during this period are normally associated with the classic 'film noir' style, with its dark, brooding, cynical atmosphere. In 'The Sting', however, George Roy Hill deliberately sets out to create a very different mood. The style is almost the exact opposite of film noir. The acting is heavily stylised (as is the scenery), and the division of the film into sections with titles such as 'The Hook' or 'The Line' is reminiscent of the formal division of a stage play into acts and scenes. The film is not in black-and-white but in bright colour, and the mood, far from being heavy and brooding, is light and cheerful. Scott Joplin's music, although written slightly earlier than the period in which the film is set, fits this mood perfectly. The major actors all play their parts perfectly- Robert Shaw as the glowering, menacing Lonnegan, Robert Redford as the young, idealistic Hooker (insofar as a con-man can be said to be an idealist), and Paul Newman as the older, more experienced and laid-back Gondorff. There are also good contributions from Charles Durning as the corrupt policement Lieutenant Snyder and Robert Earl Jones as Luther.

Despite the cheerful mood, the film has serious undertones in keeping with its themes of revenge and murder. I am not usually a great admirer of what are known as 'heist' or 'caper' movies, as I feel that too often they glamourise crime and dishonesty. 'The Sting', however, is different. Hooker and Gondorff live in a world where the moral order has broken down. The police are hopelessly corrupt- Snyder, the one representative we see of the forces of law and order, is on Lonnegan's payroll. There is no chance of Hooker getting justice for his friend's murder through the normal channels; the only way in which this can be achieved is to go outside the law. Where the police are crooked, only the criminals can execute justice. The emotional satisfaction we feel at the end of the film is because a sort of moral order has finally been restored and, moreover, because this has been done without anyone getting injured except Lonnegan's wallet. An excellent film, which well deserved its Academy Award. 9/10.

The clever plot makes multiple viewings mandatory for full enjoyment...

[Doylenf · 9/10 · 14 May 2005]

THE STING is so full of twists and turns at every unexpected moment that it never stops drawing you into all of its traps. All of it is performed at a fast clip and the performances have all the nuances needed to keep you entertained and in suspense.

Sparked by perfect period detail, a Scott Joplin piano score courtesy of Marvin Hamlisch and grand performances, it is gritty and at all times entertaining--it deserves to be seen more than once to relish all the tricks you missed the first time.

For full enjoyment, a plot description is better left for the first time viewer to discover so I won't give any plot details here.

The three central performances are perfection--Robert Redford, so comfortable in a role he was obviously born to play, Paul Newman, the epitome of a confidence trickster and Robert Shaw as the man who falls hard for The Sting. Newman and Redford are even more at home here than they were as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

No wonder it won so many '73 Oscars--including Best Picture. A film to relish again and again, with scenes that never lose their punch. The story is full of clever touches that will hook you into the 1930s atmosphere and have you waiting for the knockout ending.

Watch for the scene of Redford and the waitress he seeks out at 2:00 a.m. It's the kind of acting that can melt your heart.

You wanna make a film - here's how...

[petangi · 23 December 2005]

A delicious wheeze from start to finish. Certainly a film that leaves you thinking that you'd like to have been in Henry's gang and played a part in separating Lonnegan from his dough. The editing is pin sharp and beautifully cast with a superb musical track to keep you company. The framing, the photography, the pace all dovetail exquisitely and if you feel left outside of the game plan in your first viewing, never fear, the second time of watching, you'll enjoy it just as much but it will mean more. Certainly it's a film you'll want to see a second time. At least. Oscars rightly by the handful and nominations are full deserved to combine for a winning performance by all concerned. Definitely in my top fifty of all time.

Working The Big Con

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 5 March 2007]

The Sting, evoking a bygone era of gangsters and con men, was the deserved Best Picture of 1973. The Sting won that Oscar plus a whole flock of technical awards. One award it didn't win was for Robert Redford as Best Actor.

That must have been tough for the Academy voters because to single out Redford as opposed to Paul Newman must have felt a bit unjust. For though Newman was nominated many times over his career and finally did win for The Color of Money, did not get a nomination for The Sting.

Robert Redford is a small time grifter who while working a bait and switch street con takes off a numbers runner carrying the weekly take. The orders come down from the head man himself, Irish-American gangster Robert Shaw to kill those who did this as an example.

Redford's mentor, Robert Earl Jones, is in fact killed, mainly because Redford starts spending a lot of that newly acquired loot that tips them off. Redford wants revenge so he looks up big time con man Paul Newman who himself is dodging law enforcement as is Redford also.

They work the big con on Shaw and it's a beauty. The scheme they have is something to behold. They also have to do a couple of improvisations on the fly that lend a few twists to the scheme.

The costumes and sets really do evoke Chicago of the Thirties and director George Roy Hill assembles a great cast to support Newman and Redford. My favorite in the whole group is Charles Durning, who plays the brutally corrupt, but essentially dumb cop from Joliet who nearly gums up the works and has to be dealt with.

Special mention should also go to Robert Shaw. He's got a difficult part, maybe the most difficult in the film. He's not stupid, he would not have gotten to the top of the rackets if he was. But he also has to show that hint of human weakness that Newman, Redford, and the whole mob they assemble that makes him vulnerable to the con.

During the sixties and seventies Robert Shaw was really coming into his own as a player, getting more and more acclaim for his work. His early death was a real tragedy, there was so much more he could have been doing.

Can't also forget another co-star in this film, the ragtime music of Scott Joplin that was used to score The Sting. It probably is what most people remember about The Sting. Music from the Theodore Roosevelt era, scoring a film set in the Franklin Roosevelt era made while Nixon was president. Strange, but it actually works.

The Sting still works wonders today.

The caper movie uber alles

[moman818 · 10/10 · 2 June 2003]

A magical plot, dead on art direction, brilliant supporting roles (most notably Robert Shaw, ya falla?), and the guiding hand of Redford/Newman chemistry make this one of the Hollywood's great films. "The Sting" is a hallmark of the "Golden Age" of American film, and has molded not only countless films, but numerous genres, few of which have met the challenge of its master.

Quite good--especially the first time you see it.

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 5 May 2014]

It's been decades since I've seen "The Sting" and I decided to try watching it again. As a result of having seen it a couple times, I have some impressions I might not have had the first time. First, the film is awfully pretty--with some of the nicest titles and intertitle cards I've seen. It also is well-constructed--with several plots being interwoven quite well--a tribute to the director, George Roy Hill. The acting is quite nice and it's interesting that the film won seven Oscars--and none of them for acting! And, just like the first time, the Scott Joplin tunes are terrific. The only real negative is that because I'd seen it before, there were no surprises--and surprises are what makes this such an enjoyable film. Without the surprise, the film lacks something the second time--something that isn't true for all films. "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", for example, seems to get better each time you see it--but "The Sting" does because the movie is so dependent of surprise plot twists.

The bottom line is that for first-time viewers, the film is very hard to beat and it's easy to see how this $5.5 million dollar film brought in over $159,000,000 domestically--making this is mega-mega blockbuster. It's an exceptional film in every way.

And Don't Forget Scott Joplin!

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 21 February 2005]

I agree 100 percent that this is a wonderful movie. I first saw it over 30 years ago, and it remains vivid in my mind while I can't remember zip about movies I saw last week which others have praised and I found wanting. I can't think of another film about double and triple crosses that deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with "The Sting" (which doesn't mean that some of the others haven't been good). In addition to all the things that others have praised, one of the most memorable features of this film is the use of a Scott Joplin rag, which both lends a distinctive period touch and adds a sense of fast-paced motion to the action. I'm not much for ranking films -- top five, top ten, top 250 -- but this is one of the best. If you haven't already seen it, drop everything and find the DVD. As pure entertainment, it can't be beat.

Undoubtedly a captivating tour de force...,

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 4 July 2005]

Newman was again teamed with director George Roy Hill and Robert Redford, and the two stars again played outlaws who are basically easy-going and human, and whose criminal exploits are comically engaging…

Here the setting is Chicago in 1936… Henry Gondorff (Newman), a well-known, slight1y aging con artist, is hiding from the law, but he comes out of retirement to teach small-time hustler Johnny Hooker (Redford) the "Big Con." With the assistance of a large group of amiable crooks, the two work out an elaborate scheme to cheat an important racketeer, Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), out of $500,000.

Unlike "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," the film is inordinately complicated, and has many twists, turns and surprises… It is actually one con game after another, with the audience tricked as well as the characters… The steps in the swindle fall neatly into place in the manner of television's 'Mission: Impossible,' although once we think about the plot, it makes little sense… But we're not meant to think; "The Sting" is designed, and works extremely well, as clever entertainment…

Perhaps it was the Newman-Redford team that made "The Sting" popular, and Newman alone may have difficulty drawing audiences, but one thing is certain: In fifty one years of film acting, Newman has become one of the screen's most magnetic stars… Even today the very mention of his name evokes an aura of moody rebelliousness, rugged individualism, cool detachment and, above all, overpowering sex appeal… And he has created more memorable characters than have most actors in much longer periods of time… At least four—"The Hustler," "Hud," "Cool Hand Luke" and "Butch Cassidy"—are so well-known, so indelibly impressed on the public consciousness, that they stand among the immortals of the screen…

"The Sting" received ten Academy Award nominations—more than any other Newman film

Awsome

[artineshraghi · 10/10 · 4 July 2020]

Awsome and shocking especially on the last scenes On of the best film i ever seen

Fun Caper Comedy.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 14 September 2013]

Paul Newman & Robert Redford reunite for this Academy Award winning film directed by George Roy Hill about two con men who team up to avenge the death of a mutual friend by "stinging" a mob boss(played by Robert Shaw). Film details their intricate plan to do so, which involves an excellent cast including Charles Durning, Ray Walston, & Eileen Brennan, among others. The story climaxes in an elaborate swindle that may well fool the audience. Fine use of vintage 1930's jazz music appropriate for the period.

Wouldn't go so far as giving it the best picture award, however, since it is just a good film, not in any way a great one, though it was a big hit at the time.

The Smart Swindle...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 12 February 2023]

Doyle Lonnegan (brilliantly played by Robert Shaw) is a mean and vengeful villain, his retribution leads to you, losing a friend (he's after you to), you find your way to Henry Gondorff (coolly performed by Paul Newman), a sting is conjured around a horse (or horses), then you gather several cons, play let's pretend. The irritation is lieutenant William Snyder (played by the excellent Charles Durning), he's on your tail, and it's not long, before he'll find you, but there are ways to cause distractions, to pervert his satisfactions, as Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford nails it to perfection) you deliver quite a blinder.

Perpetual perfection that continues to deliver to this day.

Newman and Redford: The One-Two Punch

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 5 March 2006]

As I type this, this movie sits at #83 on the all-time greatest movies list. Almost makes me guilty for only giving it a 7 and possibly dropping it to 84, but to be honest it wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen. But it also wasn't the worst.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford are two confidence men ("con men" or "grifters") in the 1930s who cheat at cards. They cheat at cards against a wealthy New York City man and then sucker him in for what is called a "long con" or "big con". (If you like the character "Sawyer" from "Lost", this is probably your movie.) The whole second half of the movie is this long con: and will they pull it off? You won't know until the end, because the mafia and the FBI are both trying to kill them. And sometimes happy endings happen when the cops win and the cheaters lose. So don't bet on any horses until you know the score.

Anyway, it's a good film. Some parts are hard to follow in my opinion, but in a twisted sense this makes sense -- if they are conning the other cons, surely we the audience should be getting conned, too. It would be shoddy con work to let in ANYBODY, even the audience. And the acting is of course perfect because it's Newman and Redford. But also the guy from My Favorite Martian (Walston) and James Earl Jones' father. So, that's good.

They claim the music really makes the film. I disagree. The music is appropriate, but not because it matches the 1940s. Because it matches the cards used to separate the different scenes (which, by the way, I think was a great idea). To cut a review short that isn't going anywhere, this film is recommended. Not highly recommended. Not "top 100 films of all time" recommended. But you might want to see it anyway.

Too long, too slow & between impossible to take seriously and not that fun to watch

[Horror-yo · 5/10 · 12 December 2017]

The Sting, 1973, is the sort of film that gave rise to the grifter /crime type that has since proliferated and taken such forms in the modern day as your Oceans Eleven Twelve series where the whole plot relies on a giant scam which as it progresses reveals smaller sub-plots or sub-scams, like mini twists that keep the movie alive all this time. It turns out this one here is a bit silly in concept, but as a film why not - the only problem is as much as the movie demands a great deal of indulgence from the viewer, it doesn't in turn offer, well, all that much fun. You can do with a couple of inaccuracies and play the role wearing a thick lens for a film's time, but this here is two hours and ten minutes, it just goes on and on and there isn't enough to cover that length.

Now some parts are funny, maybe a couple (the painter trick in the Western Union office with the guy randomly giving the secretary a phone message was good), Redford and Newman do well, Shaw is very good as the trustless perpetually wary villain... but it's just too long, oddly paced and neither great fun nor terribly serious, but it's probably one of the first films that started this trend which gave rise to a great comedy like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels". 4.5/10.

Comment on accuracy of the poker scene

[SilverDSam · 26 October 2004]

The Sting.

The Sting (1973) is one of everybody's favorite films. Director George Roy Hill took a page from his successful western, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and teamed Paul Newman and Robert Redford once again, this time for an Academy Award four star movie about con men.

The intricate saga of The Sting is set in 1936 Chicago. It tells the story of grifters, Henry Gondorff and Johnny Hooker, played by Paul Newman and Robert Redford, respectively. They con the bad guy, Doyle Lonnegan, played by Robert Shaw. And at every turn, they con the audience as well.

The poker game is five card draw ('straight poker' in the film) and is set on a train traveling from New York to Chicago. Newman and Redford are on the train along with Shaw. The game has been set up by Shaw with the cooperation of the conductor. We don't know how Newman and Redford know exactly what day and what train Shaw is taking from New York to Chicago, but that is beside the purpose of our discussion. Shaw is a known card cheater, but Newman will prove to be a better one. Once again the holy game of poker will be sullied by the movies. This time, we'll love every minute of it.

Newman arranges to get himself invited to the poker game, through the conductor. He arrives sober, but apparently inebriated. It is the perfect act, consummately played in a boozy, needling performance by Paul Newman.

Shaw's character is a known cold decker (a 'cold deck' is a deck introduced surreptitiously into the game with hands pre-arranged to break one of the players)' and Newman will have to play over the top of the cold deck when it is placed into the game.

One of the subtleties of the event is missed by most viewers. Newman must ready himself to overcome the cold deck. During the play of hands, we see Newman hold the cards close to his vest and, at least once, his cards disappear briefly below table level, out of sight, and back again. Newman knows Shaw cold decks middle cards against low cards, and so Newman is gathering and holding out jacks.

Newman immediately insults Shaw upon arrival and continues to heckle him throughout the play of the game, thus making sure Shaw will cold deck the game to teach the upstart drunk a lesson. When Shaw goes to the men's room to arrange to fix the cold deck, Newman knows the time has come. (In real life, cold decks were nearly always arranged in men's rooms. They should have had a dedicated stall marked 'coolers made here'.)

The game is three handed at this point. Shaw will bring the cold deck in when he cuts the cards for the dealer to his left. In filming the cold decking, the camera shows a pair of hands over the deck, then there's a cut in the continuity. Then the camera goes immediately back to the deck and we see the hands with the warm deck going to a handkerchief in Shaw's lap, leaving the cold deck on the table. I guess it would have been hard to do in one long shot.

The detail is interesting during the dealing of the cold deck. Newman is fussing with his cigar and poking behind his vest, implying something is happening. But we never see Newman with hand positions that could be holding out cards.

Newman is dealt trip threes and Shaw is dealt a pair of nines. The third player is the dealer and he is out of the hand. Newman draws two cards and gets his four threes with the six of hearts. Shaw draws three cards and gets his four nines with the ten of spades.

The planning of the arranged cold deck is well done and probable. After the cards are dealt, the cards on top of the deck are, in order, a three, the six of hearts, two nines and the ten of spades. It doesn't matter whether Newman draws one or two cards, he'll make his four threes and, in either case, Shaw, in drawing three cards, will make his four nines.

Now, here's the unlikely trick. Newman must change the hand with four threes for a hand with four jacks. It would be easiest to hold out an entire hand of four jacks and a fifth card and switch five card hands. But Newman switches only the four threes for the four jacks he's held out and he keeps the six of hearts. That is much harder to do and less likely would be the method chosen. Newman also takes the chance that Shaw won't have one of the legitimate jacks in his hand with the four nines, but in having to play over the top of the cold deck, that gamble is unavoidable.

Shaw's problem is that he can't call Newman for card manipulation because Shaw has an audience, the other players and the conductor. After Newman leaves the cabin, Shaw says to his lackey, 'What was I supposed to do? Call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?'

Shaw was able to get $10,000 more in chips during a hand in a table stakes game. But that was okay with Newman.

The film shows Shaw wiping his face with a handkerchief during the play of the hand, implying he has disposed of the warm deck. However, we never see Newman clean up. So, when he leaves the poker cabin, one deck is short four jacks, the other deck has four extra jacks, and Newman still has four threes behind his vest somewhere. Whoever the conductor gives the decks to next, will have a few surprises.

Despite its faults, the poker scene from The Sting is the most fun filled, greatest directed, best acted, and most involved offering in cheating poker film history. And it was made over thirty years ago.

Silver Dollar Sam NothingWild.com

The Sting

[Coxer99 · 10/10 · 14 April 1999]

Great comedy-crime caper with giants Newman and Redford rekindling their "Butch & Sundance" flame to take down crime lord Robert Shaw (his finest role). Marvin Hamlisch beautifully recreates Scott Joplin's great music, while director George Roy Hill and screenwriter David S. Ward keep the film moving with snappy dialogue, wonderful art direction and editing and an excellent supporting cast. Followed by a sequel ten years later with Jackie Gleason.

Probably the most perfect movie ever made

[dggeorges_2000 · 10/10 · 10 September 2018]

What happens when you combine two first-class actors in their prime, an awesome supporting cast, a musical score arranged/written by one of the best ever, amazing period costumes, an engaging, complex (but not too complex) story, and meticulous directing?

What happens is you get a movie like The Sting.

I think a lot of people forget about this multi-award-winning film. From the initial "gotcha" to the last "Aha! Now I get it!" scene, The Sting hooks you and won't let you get up and get popcorn. You'll miss something amazing.

We watched this recently with friends on a movie night, and everyone agreed that this is a great film. This is a group of folks who nearly always disagree on what a good picture is. So this is saying something.

Take my advice, and watch this for the first time...or watch it again if it's been a while. You won't regret it.

One of the greatest movies of all time

[hwm-05554 · 10/10 · 9 June 2020]

I rarely ever write reviews, but this movie deserves one. Brilliant performance by the actors, great story and a marvelous ending. 10/10 will definitely rewatch this one again in a few years.

A true classic

[pmtelefon · 10/10 · 23 April 2020]

"The Sting" is one of the most enjoyable movies ever made. It's a wildly entertaining experience. I saw this movie when it first came out (Floral Park, NY) and many times times since. It never gets old. The look, acting, story and, of course, the music are all top notch. Director George Roy Hill and company created an almost perfect movie. "The Sting" always hits the spot.

You falla?

[livealittleday · 10/10 · 19 November 2021]

I was blown away by "The Sting." I'm a fan of caper films such as the "Ocean's Eleven" or "National Treasure" movies, and this is no exception (in fact, this is probably the best caper film I've seen). I didn't think Robert Redford and Paul Newman would be able to top "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," their previous film together, but they totally did. It's a great plot that ends up "stinging" not only the characters but the audience as well (see it to find out what I mean). It's a great balance between comedy and drama; it can be quite dramatic, but when it's funny, it's very funny. The plot involves Newman and Redford taking revenge on a gangster who killed one of their men. It's a complex, fun-filled story that entertains and mesmerizes. Some people are shot with guns, but nothing in the film is too difficult for the average person to watch, in my opinion. Not only are Newman and Redford excellent, but so is the supporting cast, including Robert Shaw, Harold Gould, and Charles Durning. The film won Best Picture of 1973, which was deserved. The film is just excellent. One of my personal favorites.

Brilliant

[gbill-74877 · 9/10 · 2 September 2022]

From the beginning of The Sting, it's clear that we're in a world where there is no moral high ground. A criminal syndicate is ripped off by a team of grifters, their delivery man having failed in his attempt to rob them instead. One of the grifters (Robert Redford) is then ripped off by a casino via a fixed roulette wheel, and then held up by a crooked cop. After he finds his buddy has been murdered by the order of the boss (Robert Shaw), he turns to a common friend (Paul Newman) to seek revenge. Everyone is a con here, even the police are on the take, and it's the cleverest con who wins. The card game on the train with both men cheating is a perfect battle of alpha predators, and it all leads up to and elaborate "sting."

While all of this is playing out, Redford's character is being hunted down by a cop for giving him counterfeit money, and the mob boss for having robbed him (not knowing he's the same guy who's floating the proposition to fleece Newman's character). This leads to some amusing scenes of Redford fleeing on foot and using his wits to escape. He survives all that and it looks like it's going perfectly, but unfortunately the FBI has been tipped off, threatening to unravel the whole scheme.

During the buildup to the final scene, there are long sequences without any dialogue, a wise choice by George Roy Hill, as it amplified the tension. He was also very clever with the subplot involving the ice-cold killer Salino, who was set loose on Redford's character out of frustration by the boss. The way this played out was brilliant, and the ending to the film was memorable as well. Along the way Paul Newman is fantastic, making it all look effortless and amusing us with his little quips (Redford: "He's not as tough as he thinks" / Newman: "Neither are we.") Great soundtrack too. Easy to see why this won as many Oscars as it did, and one that has held up well.

light, bouncy, and fun, if a bit shallow.

[matthewssilverhammer · 7/10 · 2 May 2018]

I feel like I'm not quite as high on the Newman / Redford movies as I am on the two actors themselves; there's an undeniably natural charisma between them, and that's what really pushes this film forward. Not that this movie is bad. It's not at all. It's quintessential "bad-guys-who-are-actually-good-guys" that's a whole mess of effective cons, a couple of which are being played on the audience.

So calm, so accentuated and so cute!

[zzhhhqing · 9/10 · 16 May 2020]

So calm, so accentuated and so cute! Scammers need a high IQ, and even more need to understand the human nature. The screenwriter is not the same-the most powerful screenwriter is also the most powerful liar. Robert Redford is handsome and well-directed (and this kind of person who takes up everything, hates), winning Brad Pitt!

Reunion isn't quite as fun

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 17 November 2013]

Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) cons a passerby of his cash. The problem is that the passerby was delivering money for a mob boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Doyle vows to hunt down the petty crocks and kills Hooker's partner. Hooker goes on the run and gets the help of Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) seeking a long con revenge.

The long con can confuse the audience. It takes some effort to follow. Director George Roy Hill doesn't really draw us an easy to follow map. Some of it is great like the card game. As individual scenes, some of them are quite memorable and interesting.

If there is one thing missing, it's a bit of comedy to break up the serious tone. Redford-Newman-Hill reunite but is missing that charming fun of 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid'. At least it moves along quite well which is not always the case for movies of that era.

The big Sell

[onepotato2 · 2/10 · 9 March 2008]

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.