Best Picture: "The Sting," 1973

Movie Stats:

Released 1973 (USA)

American, in English

Director – George Roy Hill

Stars – Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw

Plot Summary:

In 1930s Chicago, when grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford) pulls a con on the wrong man (Doyle Lonnegan, played by Shaw), there are deadly consequences. Hooker is forced to join forces with seasoned con man Henry Gondorff (Newman) to exact his revenge. (Note: This summary makes the movie sound very serious. It’s not.)

Warnings:

A small amount of blue language & relatively mild violence.

Bad Stuff:

It starts out a little slow, so it was hard for me to get into, but once it got moving, I settled into it nicely.

It’s one of those movies that’s definitely fun and entertaining, but I had to wonder what the point of it was other than that. The story is good. However, it doesn’t go anywhere that’s satisfying beyond the “revenge” aspect. There’s no character development. I guess what I’m saying is that this is fluff. While that’s not necessarily a bad thing, I expect more than fluff from my Oscar winners.

Good Stuff:

Great soundtrack.

Newman and Redford are both extremely easy on the eyes. Oh, and they both turned in fine performances. I enjoyed Shaw the most in this film, however, which was a relief after his turn in A Man for All Seasons.

I really enjoyed the big con, called “The Wire.” It was intricate, with a lot of layers, so it was fun to watch it unfold. I didn’t even see the final layer coming until it happened, which was a pleasant surprise. I’m not usually fooled so easy.

The Verdict:

First, a story. If you’re a regular reader of these reviews, you’ve probably seen me say “I saw this movie once about 18 years ago” on a semi-frequent basis. Here’s why. In the mid-1990s, I spent my junior year of college in a study-abroad program in Germany. My fellow American students and I often went to a local video store that rented out English-language movies. However, their selection was limited, so we ended up renting a lot of older films. That’s how I saw a lot of these Oscar winners for the first time.

That having been said, I saw this movie once about 18 years ago. I didn’t remember a whole lot about it other than that I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it a second time around; I just wasn’t especially wowed. It was fun. It had some nice eye-candy. That’s about it. I’m not going to give a movie I liked a harsh rating. However, I don’t think you need to see it unless you’re feeling especially inclined.

I give the movie 3.5 stars.