Rating: 
Summary: My FAVORITE Movie!
Review: This movie is my favorite of all time! It is one of those moview that you can watch over and over, and not get bored with it.This movie has comedy, action, and many twists throughout the entire thing. WOW! Get this movie!
Rating:
Summary: One film you can watch over and over and over
Review: It just doesn't get old or tired. And each time I watch The Sting, I notice something I missed on the previous viewing. It deservedly won a gazillion Academy Awards. The Sting pairs Newman and Redford, who, having played off each other's strengths in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, find themselves up once again in deep do-do. What began as a simple caper turned evil when Redford stole Mob money and his partner and friend was killed. Knowing the Mob was after him, too, Redford figured the best defense is an offense and enlisted the drunken, over-the-hill Newman to help him cook up The Sting, the ultimate scheme of revenge that has the police on one side and the Mob on the other - and a bunch of scam artists in the middle.
From then on, the movie takes one twist after another, and it's to the screenwriter's credit that what appears to be a confusing and tragic outcome turns into a tour-de-force of plotting, mental wizardry, and acting. You'll find yourself going, "Whaaaat?" at several points, and then grinning as you realize that you, too, have been tricked - or stung.
Don't miss it. And it'll make you want to buy the soundtrack of Scott Joplin's music.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie - bad DVD
Review: As has been said in many reviews - this movie rocks. However, the presentation in the DVD is full frame - unfortunately. However, it is not a simple pan and scan of the widescreen. The movie was shot in 35 mm 4:3 format and cropped to 1.85:1. I compared frames from the extras on the Confidence (2003) DVD (which showed a couple of shots in widescreen) and this DVD. The Sting DVD shows more above and below the black bars, but does loose some to the left and right. Not really a pan and scan, but not really the full frame before the 1.85:1 crop either...
Rating: 
Summary: DO NOT BUY!
Review: Wait for the widescreen edition, which, as Christian Pelchat pointed out, is not far away since this year marks the movie's 30th anniversary. It is shocking to see movies released in full-screen when they were originally shot with widescreen film, and furthermore, when all TVs will be widescreen within the next 5-7 years. Most people don't understand that you are losing up to 50% of the picture when you watch a full-screen movie, which is a tragedy. To Universal Studios: Shame on you for releasing a full-screen version only.
Rating:
Summary: We "gotcha" but you don't know it!
Review: The most successful "sting" occurs when a victim never realizes that she or he has been "stung." In this Academy Award winning best film, that would be Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), a mobster/gambler in Chicago in the 1930s who is bilked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) and his associates who include Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford). Credit George Roy Hill with brilliant direction of an especially talented cast. The musical score is eminently appropriate, devised by Marvin Hamlisch based on the works of Scott Joplin. A great deal of real or apparent blood is shed as elaborate preparations for the sting are completed. Most of the characters are not who and what they seem. We know what Gondorff and Newman are up to, of course, which adds to the fun. But there is a twist near the end of the film which fooled me. The narrative is seamless. The pace is expeditious but unhurried. In all respects, this is a thoroughly entertaining film but also one which at least suggests some darker regions of human nature. Those who enjoy it may wish to check out The Grifters (1990) which also has a bittersweet flavor at times. For broader humor, I suggest Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988). NOTE: My comments are limited entirely to the film itself. Although the image and sound are clearer than in the VHS format, the supplementary features are unworthy of this Academy Award winning best film.
Rating: 
Summary: Time to end the confusion!
Review: I am revising a review I posted earlier on Amazon due to some new information. I have been checking back every so many months to see if a special edition has been released because I feel that this film is so incredible it deserves such treatment. Even though Universal has not yet chosen to do this yet, if you love this movie you still can't go wrong with this release. Yes there are no extra features and yes the movie could probably use some remastering- however you are seeing more of the movie than you actually would have seen in the theaters. Not convinced? Read on... Because of the great amount of confusion and ongoing debate on this topic I decided to go straight to the source and contact Universal Studios themselves and this was their answer ...: "THE STING was shot in 1.33 but projected in a matted 1.85 aspect ratio for theatrical distribution. The full frame DVD carries the modification disclaimer for this reason. This is one of those rare cases where you actually see more picture information on the full frame home video presentation than was shown in theaters." So there you have it. As you can see everyone is correct. It WAS shown in the theaters at 1.85:1 but FILMED in 1.33:1. Hopefully this will put an end to all the confusion once and for all. Universal has also stated at this time that they have no plans to release a Special Edition DVD so if you want to have this movie - this is it for now. If they do at some point in the future let's just hope they provide a rebate for those of us who have bought this edition.
Rating:
Summary: So what is the original format for The Sting?
Review: Many reviewers have expressed dismay that The Sting appears in DVD only in Full Frame. Then at least two reviewers have tried to convince us that Full Frame was the way the movie was made and how it was intended to be. Some of the explanations are technical but semi-convincing. Meanwhile, the Widescreen VHS version says this on the box: "To preserve the artistic integrity intended by the filmmakers, this film is presented in its original theatrical screen image of 1.85:1." So who's correct?
Rating:
Summary: pan & scan P.U.
Review: What a waste to release a movie that is probably excellent in the pan & scan format. Who wants to watch a movie that is missing about 50% of the original film by being chopped off?! We agree wholeheartedly with the review "WTF Pan & Scan?!?!" We will NEVER buy or rent a movie edited by someone who is not the director. Film is an art and the director had very specific ideas and thoughts they wanted portrayed by their format and what a shame to ruin someone's artistic idea and hard work. Pan and Scan totally ruins many a good or great movie. Dressing it up with the more flattering euphemism "full screen" is simply misleading people who don't know any better.
Rating:
Summary: A little history lesson
Review: First off, let me say this is a wonderful movie. I grew up watching it on TV, and I love it even more today than when I was wee little one. However, I think most people's anger regarding the film's transfer to DVD in the pan and scan format is justified. There's no such thing as a film that was shot in Pan and Scan. Most films pre-dating the television boom of the '50s were shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. This is the same square aspect ratio that current television sets(not including newer HDTV sets) have, which makes the use of PAN and SCAN in the transferring of those films to video unnecessary. However, after the big television boom of the '50s, the theatrical motion picture industry came out with anamorphic lens technology that would allow films to be shot in the extremely wide rectangular 2.4:1 aspect ratio in order to distinguish themselves from the television market. The promise of larger and wider vistas was a marketing strategy meant to increase theatrical motion picture attendance. As a result, many films since the fifties were shot in the wide 2.4:1 aspect ratio, making it necessary to PAN and SCAN over the their images, croping off almost half of the picture so that it may fill the more square aspect ratio of a television screen when transfering them to video. However, since the '70s, the war between the motion picture industry and television has subsided, and yet another aspect ratio closer to the television format yet still a little bit wider emerged. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio was employed in many films since the '70s alongside other films shot in the wider 2.4:1 format. Though 2.4:1 is still used today. 1.85 has become the motion picture standard that many directors use because it is more easily transfered to video. Part of the image is stillcropped off to acheive a full screen transfer to video, but the effect is not as pronounced as that which occurs when working off 2.4:1 sources. From what I remember, the Sting seems to transfer quite well to the full screen format in video. At first, I though it was a stylistic device employed by the filmmakers, utilizing the oldest full frame aspect ratio employed in motion pictures around the time the film is set. But since then, I have looked up the techinical specs at imdb, and it seems as though the film were shot in the 1:85 format. Which means, part of the image has been cropped off so that it may fill the television screen frame. While the effect may seem virtually invisible, I am curious as well as a little bit saddened that the studio hasn't chosen to release an intact 1.85 matted transfer to DVD for the collectors and purists out there.
Rating:
Summary: To the crybabies wining over pan & scan
Review: As another reviewer said, the film was shot in pan & scan. So the sides weren't "cropped off," next time you might want to check the lable before you go rent the movie.
For pete's sake, I wonder if you guys through away other great films shot that way (like "On the Waterfront" and "From here to eternity").
If you crybabies have a brain then you might want to check a search engine to see if a widescreen version even exsists rather than waist you time putting down a good movie.
Nuff said.
| 
