After years and years of hearing nothing but praise for this film, "underrated, better than Goodfellas," and being a huge Scorcese fan, logically I had to see it. I came away with friends coming up to me saying "wasn't that so much better than Goodfellas and The Godfather?" I can now conclude my friends sniffed too much paint thinner as children.

A classic? Hell no. A good film? Still hell no. This thing can barely be classified as a film to begin with. It's more like two hours of droning, tedious, boring, infuriatingly pointless narration with some clips of actors attached to it.

The opening was steller. I was convinced I was watching a good film. I was still navie. The next ten minutes got me a little fidgedy and shaky. "Okay, guess it's not truly flawless, narration is a little overdone." Man it's hilarious how naive I was. After fifty minutes my mouth hung agap, I was shocked. "This narration is still happening. It won't stop!" I can tolerate bad narration, but not when it consumes damn near 100% of the film.

What's bad about the narration you ask? Well I assume this is for someone who hasn't seen the film. For those who have, you already know why it's bad as you've seen it:

- Joe Pesci. Fantastic actor. Love him when he's in front of the camera (Michael Jackson's Moonwalker aside). But he doesn't cut it as a narrator. He seems bored here. So bored that I can't can't help but be bored whenever he talks.

- Explaining things I already know. Come on. I expect to see this crap in an amateur script, but a Scorcese film? How many times did he use narration to spell out what I could have figured out or what the visual told me. Camera pans in on the cash room, and the narration will just say "this is the heart of the casino. This is where the money goes." Thanks. Like I couldn't figure that out myself I needed De Niro to hold my hand for me.

- It tries to capture the same low key droning quality of Henry Hill's narration in Goodfellas, but that still a hint of life to it. And it worked as a way of showing me that a life of crime left him dead on the inside. There's deadpan and there's dead. This is much more the latter. And it adds to trying-too-hard-to-be-goodfellas syndrome this film is plagued with.

But even after using all my effort to try and find a story buried under the narration, what little I found didn't interest me. Te Ginger character is teeth grattingly unlikable. I saw no point to her character other than to showcase that, turns out Sharon Stone can actually act. The "shocking" beat down scenes, like the pencil scene and the phone scene, were hilariously predictable. The thing felt like a mess. There was no drive, no purpose, no interesting idea or theme to lacth onto. Expect it's a watered down Goodfellas featuring a casino. Did Joe Pesci really have to be a hardened gangster again?

This did absolutely nothing but make me crave Goodfellas. After the credits rolled I needed to watch that to bring my mood back up. Cripes what a boring, tedious mess.

4/10  

Well, not everybody's perfect.  

Haha, just kidding, but seriously, this is the first review I have ever read that really shits on Casino.  Do I think it's deserved?  No.  Did I think it was better than Goodfellas?  No.  Did I think Scorsese tried to recreate the magic of GoodFellas?  Yes.  Did he succeed?  No, but I think he succeeded in making a pretty sick gangster flick regardless.  Many people hold it in high regard and it will be remembered for many years to come.

Scorsese shoots Casino the same way he shot Goodfellas.  Like a gangster would.  Sloppy editing, flashbacking, tons of Voice over, all that jazz.  Some people like it, some people don't.  IMO, I would in no way classify it as a bad film.  The majority of the film is based on a true story, a really fucking crazy true story, and I think Scorsese nailed it.  If I had a choice between him and some other director, I would go with Martin Scorsese every time.

It's hilarious in how trashy it is. My brother and I have had a discussion like this many times in the past and we're both in agreement that Casino is Scorsese parodying GoodFellas. It's entertaining overall and fun sometimes, but this is nothing close to a good movie...

While by no means a bad film, I think Casino's flaws fall on Scorcese's shoulders. To tell another gangster story so soon after Goodfellas seems to be a case of "striking while the iron's hot." The story here is familiar territory, but I think the biggest mistake with Casino is DeNiro and Pesci, and anyone else who appeared in Goodfellas. Instead of bringing in some fresh faces, Scorcese put on the comfortable (bankable) shoe and rode with it.

Not to say all the casting is bad. It wasn't. Sharon Stone was good; I think she was nominated for Best Actress for this. Alan King, Kevin Pollack -- all breaths of fresh air. But it was, IMO, James Woods who stole the show as Ginger's deadbeat ex, Lester Diamond. We didn't see enough of him!

I think leaving out DeNiro and Pesci could've saved this film. It wouldn't feel like such a retread if some new blood was brought in for those roles.

As far as the voice over goes? Didn't bother me really. That's just the way this story went, and it was probably there from the beginning. Even Scorcese once admitted that many of his movies don't really have a "true" story to them, so the voiceover, however tedious, was necessary.

Look at the similarities between Casino and The Wolf Of Wall Street. Both three hour movies, same theme (guys who had it all then lost it), and the style in which they were made, VO's and flashbacks included. Very similar. Didn't hear nobody complaining about the VO in TWOWS. Know why? It was fresh, funny, and it wasn't a retread, or trying to capitalize on his last big movie.

Actually, I can't remember Scorcese's last BIG movie.

Might have been Casino.

Steve

I used to think of Casino as a bad Goodfellas. Now I think of it as a bad Wolf of Wall Street.

Pretty terrible movie, but lots of fun to watch, and with the best actors around.

Quoted from SAC Actually, I can't remember Scorcese's last BIG movie. Might have been Casino. Steve

I'd say 2006's The Departed, which I believe he won, what was it again, best director and best picture?

He should have won 16 years earlier with Goodfellas, but instead he lost to Dances With Wolves and that IMO was the biggest travesty in the history of Cinema.

Quoted from deadite I'd say 2006's The Departed, which I believe he won, what was it again, best director and best picture?

Never heard of it.    

But I do believe Goodfellas was voted best movie of the 90's. Go figure.

YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE DEPARTED?!????!1111111111111

Quoted from Guest He should have won 16 years earlier with Goodfellas, but instead he lost to Dances With Wolves and that IMO was the biggest travesty in the history of Cinema.

Dances with Wolves is a pretty good movie in my opinion but I agree that Goodfellas is better.

On the subject of Casino. It's hard for me not to think of it like low grade Goodfellas but I still think it's a good movie.

I was never a fan of these kinds of movies. I call them "raise to power movies" - American Gangster, Goodfellas, Wolf on Wall Street and so on. The structure of the stories is very predictable and more or less the same to me.

Goodfellas - 1990

Casino - 1995

Both directed by Martin Scorsese.  Both written by Nicholas Pilleggi, and both based on Pilleggi's novel.

Both great films, IMO.  Neither film was a Box Office darling, however.

To call Casino a bad movie is BS, if you ask me.  Of all the piece of shit, stinkass crapfests over the years, Casino is a bad flick?  Really?

Reccher, not sure who you are in terms of age or anything else, but the fact that you just now saw Casino for the first time, kind of gives you away in terms of your movie knowledge/experience.

Blasphemous!

Quoted from Dreamscale To call Casino a bad movie is BS, if you ask me.  Of all the piece of shit, stinkass crapfests over the years, Casino is a bad flick?  Really?

Yes. Granted, there are different levels of bad. There's bad: House of the Dead (for example). There's bad: Sharknado. Then, there's bad: Casino. There are the kinds of bad where something is literally awful. There's the kind of bad that you watch so you can laugh at it (Casino could fall into this category, but I saved it for the cliché SyFy channel Saturday night genetically-altered monster movie premieres). Last, there's the bad where it's entertaining and you can watch it for the enjoyment value but you know it's not a good movie. I do this all the time with movies like Snake Eyes and Swordfish (also, for example). The latter is the one that Casino would fall into, for me.

I actually saw House of the Dead in the theater.  You are correct, that's some piss poor movie making by Dr. Boll.

I think you know I enjoy both Swordfish and Snake Eyes.  I honestly don't see Casino or these two movies as being "bad".

Quoted from Dreamscale I think you know I enjoy both Swordfish and Snake Eyes.  I honestly don't see Casino or these two movies as being "bad".

I always felt bad about Snake Eyes. I think the first half of that movie is great, it goes down hill for me after about the 40 min mark. But that first third or half is pretty strong IMO.

Quoted from Demento I always felt bad about Snake Eyes. I think the first half of that movie is great, it goes down hill for me after about the 40 min mark. But that first third or half is pretty strong IMO.

Agreed...although Cage's "acting" here is so over the top, I sometimes can't help but laugh.

Gary Sinese's acting is also...uh...not great.