Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

John Brooks 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.

chaswe-28402 Although impressed by the impeccable manner in which this story was crafted, plotted, dramatised and performed, what really struck me was the marked difference in cinemacting between the American and British players. Newman and Redford were glamorous stars: they spoke their lines convincingly, but their personalities didn't change. No doubt I haven't seen all their films, but enough to perceive them as somehow always the same. In a sense, type-cast. The British actor, on the other hand, here Robert Shaw, disappears into his role, in the tradition of innumerable actors of the same school: Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Anthony Hopkins, the incomparable Gary Oldman. Shaw was one of the best, as the variety of his many roles bears witness. Unforgettable as Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons, as Aston in The Caretaker. I learn that he was also a novelist, a playwright, and an alcoholic, dying early, at age 51. You follow ?

Leofwine_draca THE STING is a fine 1930s-set comedy adventure film re-teaming Paul Newman and Robert Redford after the runaway success of BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. I found it more enjoyable than their previous outing thanks to the intense storyline, which is set in the world of gangsters and gambling and features oodles of suspense and tension as the two men attempt to pull off one of the biggest scams in history.The thing that becomes quickly apparent when watching THE STING is just how well written it is. The script is very clever without being obnoxiously so and the involving opening set-piece is a fine example of this. Newman plays in support here and has less screen time than I expected, but the film belongs to Redford anyway and he's a delight, the best I've seen him. The third player in the thing is Robert Shaw, who brings level of quiet intensity to the picture that makes his character even more imposing than the famous henchman role he essayed in FROM Russia WITH LOVE.Although THE STING has a long running time, not a moment of it feels slow or boring. Instead it keeps moving through interesting set-pieces, mainly focused on gambling (which is a fascinating cinematic subject matter in the right hands) but also including a number of decent foot chases too. Everything builds to a classic climax that rounds off an excellent film overall.

l-52311 Typically older movies like this aren't my thing. It's something to do with the whole 'good guy bad guy' thing. It's a little too much in the wrong way for me. Now, I'm not saying it was a bad movie or anything because I feel i did enjoy it in many parts. I feel it just need to be short and sweet. Instead it was dragged out and sort of repeating the same plot the whole movie. Another thing that bothers me about these movies is how under developed we were back in that time. I just think of how the females are lesser and seen as like romantic pawns in these movies. It make me a little uncomfortable. But all in all this movie wasn't the worst. However, I don't think i would seek it out to watch on my own.