Although it shouldn't take 2 hours and 51 minutes to tell a good story, Scorsese manages to draw us in.

Rating: 7/10 (15 November 2006)

By 1995, Martin Scorsese had well and truly etched his name into the film making book and Casino is really just a cherry on the icing which was already on the cake; this means it's not a bad thing but just feels unnecessary. Whilst this film took me two sittings to get through (I had to cut it off with about 40 minutes remaining the first time I sat down to watch it), I can still see why it's gained a somewhat cult status amongst the masses.
What's good about 'Casino' is its energy and vibrancy. The film is very colourful and attractive and it sucks the viewer into its world with several brilliant voice-overs that are informative and dark yet often funny. This is twinned with some brilliant use of colour giving us stone wall proof that cars don't just have to be metallic dark green or blue; jackets don't have to be grey Armani's or pinstripe suits  (they can be pale red!?) and that walls and buildings can be splashed with every colour of the rainbow and still look moderately average. Everybody has a favourite colour and so, when the viewer is drawn into the world giving the feeling you're actually there, sitting in the bars opposite the characters, walking and talking with the croupiers and gambling with the rest of them; it feels like there is something there for you  everyone, in fact and the colours act as a focal point as you map onto various items, objects, props and costume that bear your familiar favourite shade, making things easy on the gaze. This is how Casino's early attempt at drawing you in works.
Although the film stays in the exact same gear for at least thirty minutes and the voice-overs (which you think will depart once the scene is set) remain, you can ignore it in a certain sense. There is that nagging sensation, however, that the whole opening is just a watered down back-story  explaining what happened in the first film, making 'Casino' actually feel like a sequel rather than a new, fresh film in itself.
What's also odd is the fact that a lot of scenes just feel unnecessary. Pesci's character's dialogue scenes and twitchiness can only feel genuine and spookily evil for so many times and the results from his mounting relationship with a female character can be seen coming from quite a mile away. Although they feel out of place, the scenes are still entertaining enough  especially for the viewer who wants to see Pesci pile on his evil, bad-guy, 'wise-guy' caricature that he's been made famous for over the years. It's these things that bulk up the running time, frustratingly.
What really grabbed the film by the scruff was the whole plot point that catapulted it into its final third. Without giving anything away, I'll mention one word: 'corruption' that involves (in some crazy way) absolutely everyone. And, as the final third reaches its, and the films, climax; there seem to be several twists and flips of the coin that involve characters floating here and then to there and then back again and then to where they were two stages ago..and so on. This was very annoying and was a disappointing, messy way to finish the film. It concludes, then re-opens and then concludes again before partly opening it back up before finally allowing the equilibrium to catch up with itself.
Although brave, bold and energetic; 'Casino' ultimately felt like an excuse to pool together a couple of big name Hollywood actors, actresses and a director just to make another gangster film that everybody will probably love. If you want a film like this one but better, try Wayne Kramer's 2003 film 'The Cooler'. At least that's not as ridiculously long.