The usual comparison with GoodFellas

Rating: 10/10 (17 July 2006)

First up, you definitely need to be in the mood to see this movie. I can watch a three hour movie no problem but with this movie It can really feel like three hours if you are just watching it for the sake of something to watch. Comparison with GoodFellas is inevitable and personally, I think that both movies are just as good as each other. Casino has certain qualities that GoodFellas lacks and GoodFellas has certain qualities that Casino lacks. Casino doesn't quite have the density of secondary characters that enriched the world of GoodFellas. It really felt like a community but then, that was the point of GoodFellas; that Henry Hill was being invited into a big family of sorts and that he would witness it's love and appeal but also it's horror and debauchery. Casino is more centred around 'Ace' Rothstein and Nicky Santoro. The secondary characters are there to provide their cog in the story and then go home. However, Casino has more grit and really conveys the pomp and greed surrounding the so-called "high" society of Vegas, not just the pathetic punters. It is also a benefit to hear of how the casinos work under the gaze of the Mob through the heavy use of voice-oveR. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci are a fantastic double act and one cannot hide a certain envy towards Scorsese that he is able to wield the acting might of these two in his movies. Just seeing them having an argument is an acting tour de force (whatever that means, but I know it's positive). It's amazing that, like Temeura Morrison in 'Once Were Warriors', in that little scene with his son, Joe Pesci can make Nicky Santoro seem sympathetic. This must surely be the hallmark of a great actor. These are two actors at the top of their game under one of the greatest directors of all time, not just today. Enjoy. That said, Sharon Stone is as good as the madonna-cum-whore, Ginger, who starts the movie as a real figure in the world of gambling but ends up as a spiteful junkie, not even caring towards her child. I have not seen many of her films but I am sure that, just like Bruce Willis, if given the right roles or right director, she can act as good as the best of them. The supporting players such as; Don Rickles, James Woods, Kevin Pollack and L.Q. Jones manage to make their characters fresh and interesting in the time space given to them. The violence is one thing that people always comment on when it comes to this film. There is no doubt that it is pretty strong violence but what gets me is that the scene where Nicky stabs that man with the pen never gets a mention whereas the 'head-in-a-vice' scene always does. I see the pen scene as being a whole lot more graphic and shocking than the vice scene. This is because, with the vice scene, you get a couple of big warnings before hand so you know what will happen (also, the violence is more suggested, even though you can see what is happening to the victim, you do not see the gory details). With the pen scene, however, it takes you totally off guard. The close up of the pen entering the neck is more akin to Hostel than GoodFellas. It certainly took me off guard. What I want to talk about, finally, is the climax. Is it a climax? If so, it is a very played out climax. Maybe because it concerns the fates of several characters in the movie as opposed to just one big bad guy. Certainly Nicky's fate is drawn and bloody and the re-invention of Vegas is a part of that climax. It is a frank and final ending to the film and probably very fitting, as it shows us that crime doesn't pay for some people. In conclusion, I think that Casino is a definite Scorsese classic and one that should gain as much praise as his more lauded works. Despite some minor quibbles, it is up there with the better of Hollywood movies and hopefully will mature as time goes on rather than being regarded as the naughty younger brother of GoodFellas