Perhaps The Best Gangster Film I've Seen

Rating: 10/10 (27 February 2014)

Just to give a bit of background, I thought I'd start by explaining what it actually takes for me to score a film 10/10, because at this point the top score on here has lost a lot of it's significance. Not that this is a serious issue obviously, but I thought I should open by stating exactly how good I think a film should be in order for it to justify a rating like that, and hopefully in doing so the point will be put across as to how highly I rate this film.
For me, a 10/10 film is a film whereby not only each and every facet of is at least of a very high standard, but one that is so good that there is literally no single aspect of it that stands out as being even marginally weak, whether that be the acting performance of a character, a particular scene/section of the film, the dialogue or any other aspect that could be picked up on. Right from the off, the film must set a standard and a tone and keep on that course so as to at least remain within the same bracket of quality, whilst also excelling in every possible aspect along the way. Any deviation from this path represents an imperfection in terms of the way the film is balanced, and as such will prevent a perfect 10/10 score from being given.
Given this criteria, take The Godfather as an example: a timeless masterpiece that is rightfully held up as one of the greatest films of all time. The acting is sublime, the plot is compelling and the characters are all well fashioned. Despite these strengths however, Michael's development at the start is not handled with the same precision and quality as the rest of the film in my opinion. It stands out as being more rushed and less carefully crafted when measured against the rest of the film, and I felt the opening stages were in need of a couple more scenes to bridge the early phases of the transformation with what followed. This stood out for me in context of the quality of the rest of the film, and I would therefore deduct half a point on that basis. The difference in quality here is enough for me to call it a sizable imperfection in a relative sense.
Another example to use is Once Upon A Time In America, which is sometimes labelled 'the best gangster movie ever made', with people highlighting the exceptional plot and the wonderful soundtrack by Ennio Morrocone. These are, of course, valid points - the music is amongst some of the finest ever made for film, and the plot is as absorbing as it is complex. That being said, the acting is considerably lower across the board than in other classics in similar genres (Goodfellas, Godfather I and II, City of God, etc), and the score is often applied over-indulgently: the melodies of Deborah's theme and the main theme for example are destroyed by the end of the film, and scenes are sometimes made to seem exaggerated and jarring as a result. On top of that, there are occasions whereby these beautiful melodies are highly inappropriate, with one particular rendition actually making me laugh loud because of how bizarre it was (hint: the Cleopatra part of the film, after the...incident...in the car).
For those reasons, despite it's strengths, that film is an 8/8/5 for me. Very good, but there are too many imperfections and imbalances.
Anyway, I give that brief analysis of those two up there in order to illustrate my view that there are no literally no such relative imperfections and imbalances to point out with Casino. The film starts off well paced and sharp, and from the very offset it maintains an extremely high standard of acting, storytelling and pacing throughout.
Even nitpicking, I cannot think of a single weakness, and on top of that the strengths are seriously strong. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, as usual, are fantastic in their roles, and I honestly can't remember ever seeing anyone play a character like Sharon Stone plays in this so well. For all the right reasons, she made me feel hateful, angry and unpleasant. I cowered and cringed because of how well it was acted, and I spent most of the time watching her thinking about how much I wanted her character to meet a horrible, yet just ending.
Seriously... this film is a must-watch. There are a lot of unfair, unfavourable comparisons to Goodfellas in here, but I honestly think this is better. Does Goodfellas keep up the same standard of plot like this does throughout? I don't think so personally - the closing scenes are slower and weaker, where as Casino maintains an extremely high level, delivering accordingly right at the end. The ending is satisfying (for whatever reason - no spoilers here), and the tension that has been built up throughout is sufficiently capitalised on. Goodfellas, on the other hand, more peters out by comparison.
That is obviously is not to criticise Goodfellas - as a film that's about as close to 10 as you can get without it being 10 in my opinion. It's just that Casino is better paced, more consistent and more complex and nuanced in its plot. As well as this, it gains from the greater emphasis on De Niro and Pesci, who both play superior, more fleshed out characters in this.
The combination of these two and Sharon Stone in conjunction with this plot makes for an absolute masterpiece, and I highly recommend this film to anyone with even a passing interest in film and Scorsese. I was in awe of it throughout and think that, alongside Raging Bull, it's probably the most underrated film I've come across so far on IMDb.