May I Be So Bold As To Say: This Movie Is BETTER Than "Goodfellas"?

Rating: 9/10 (26 September 2005)

This movie has been criticized by many for being a reworking of sorts of Martin Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi's previous true-crime classic film, "Goodfellas", and in many ways, that idea holds water: it uses many of the same actors, the same kind of sudden, spontaneous, unflinchingly brutal violence, the same SteadiCam direction, and of course the glitzy period soundtrack - not to mention the extreme use of the "f" word (422 times - and this time, not all of them are from Joe Pesci!). Yes, it has all that. But, in my opinion, "Casino" is actually BETTER than "Goodfellas" in many ways. I can't quite put my finger on it, but everything (pretty much) just clicked.
Sam "Ace" Rothstein (Robert De Niro in one of his best performances) is a very skilled hustler and gambler who takes over (at the behest of the Mafia) the Tangiers Casino in 1970's Las Vegas. Soon, he's on the top of the world, with him and his cohorts making millions of dollars in an intricate money-making scam - not to mention a beautiful, sexy wife, Ginger (Sharon Stone). But things start to fall apart when Rothstein's childhood friend-cum-mob enforcer Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) and his crew, representing "the big bosses" back east, arrive to make sure everything goes smoothly. Soon, Rothstein's empire falls apart, from an increasingly leaky scheme, sloppy playing by Santoro and crew, his wife's infidelities and drug use, and pressure from the Feds, state government, and the local county commissioner (L.Q. Jones). Finally, Rothstein watches as pretty much everyone around begins to tumble, and he finds he must watch his own back as well.
This movie is simply marvelous to behold. Scorsese's direction and Robert Richardson's direction are beautiful, taking Scorsese's wonderfully fluid directing style from the mean streets of New York to the glitzy neon jungle of Las Vegas. Scorsese and Pileggi do a wonderful of showing the glitz, glamor, corruption, and spectacle of old-time Las Vegas, through the utterly beautiful images, and the fantastic dialog. This movie's screenplay isn't laugh-out-loud funny like "Goodfellas", but it's just as memorable and well-put together. The violence, as in "Goodfellas", is bloody and unflinchingly graphic (particularly Pesci's interrogation of a rival mobster and the death of Pesci and his brother), while not at all glamorized.
The acting is solid all around, though that's to be expected. De Niro gives a truly outstanding performance as Ace, who comes across as a normal guy who happens to have had a multi-billion dollar cash cow fall in his lap. Sharon Stone, who I don't much care for, does an excellent job portraying Ginger's wild and crazy nature early on, and doing a fabulous job of showing her downward spiral. Pesci is solid as always, and his performance here (despite the abundance of "f-cks") is actually more subdued than in "Goodfellas", though just as good. The rest of the supporting cast - Don Rickles, Alan King, Kevin Pollack, L.Q. Jones, Dick Smothers, and Frank Vincent, among many others, all turn in wonderful performances, even in the smallish roles. The only flaw is James Woods, who, as Stone's loser ex-boyfriend, is perfectly cast and does what he can, but is more or less wasted. The period soundtrack is simply gorgeous, and truly helps to enhance the atmosphere. Unlike in "Goodfellas", where the music was mostly solid but did have a few out-of-place songs, all of the music clicks.
99 out of 100 movie buffs will tell you that "Goodfellas" is a classic, while "Casino" is merely a pale attempt to live up to that film by Scorsese. I can't speak for more than the minority - but I actually think that "Casino" is a more solid version of the package that "Goodfellas" delivered. Both films are classics that I'd recommend to anyone; it's just a matter of personal preference.
My score: 9/10