Casino February 25, 2006
Posted by clydefro in : Modern Films, 1990s , trackback
Released in November of 1995 to mixed reviews, Casino suffered from high expectations and failed to woo moviegoers who were instead flocking to theaters for the computer animated film Toy Story. In recent years, director Martin Scorsese’s third collaboration with Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci has been elevated to somewhat of a contemporary classic, despite not being near the level of achievement of Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Sharon Stone’s Oscar-nominated performance is often cited as the best of her career.
Casino tells the story of Sam “Ace” Rothstein, played by DeNiro when he still cared about acting, and his childhood buddy Nicky Santoro, played by Pesci when he was still an actor. Rothstein becomes the boss of a new casino, the Tangiers, in Las Vegas and Nicky eventually comes out west from “back home,” as it’s called in the film, to take advantage of what he believes to be untapped moneymaking opportunities, i.e. stealing from bookies. Stone plays Ginger, a hustler/hooker whom Ace, despite his penchant for investigating all the ins and outs of every bet and his reputation as the greatest gambler there is, marries and entrusts with $2 million in a safe deposit box. This, of course, proves to be a big mistake on Rothstein’s part and sets up the last half of the movie.
I wish I had a more positive opinion of Casino, but no matter how hard I try I see its deep flaws and wonder how it’s gained so many supporters in the decade since its release. I’ll start with the good things. Scorsese’s direction and the set design are top notch. DeNiro has never looked so dapper as he does in the colorful suits Rothstein wears here. The casino scenes are all fascinating and give the viewer a feel of how Las Vegas in the 1970s must have been. I also enjoyed the change in the dynamics of the relationship between Rothstein and Nicky as the film progressed.
Unfortunately, there were several things that I found fault with in the film. Even though Pesci gives a fine performance overall, his forced Chicago accent is a distraction especially throughout the voiceovers. Everyone knows Joe Pesci is a New York/New Jersey guy and he does not make the accent here believable. Another problem is the film’s length. At three hours, it’s just too long. It feels bloated and unnecessarily tedious at times, especially in the second hour. Some of the themes are reinforced to the point of exhaustion, particularly those involving Ginger. In fact, Stone’s character was my biggest disappointment. It just felt like a one-dimensional feat of hysterics instead of a performance. I saw little nuance and never understood what it was that attracted Rothstein to her as opposed to any other girl hanging around the casino. Stone played her as almost completely unsympathetic and gave the audience very little reason to care. I’m not someone who thinks movie characters have to be likeable, but they should at least exhibit layers of personality so that the viewer can try to understand the reason they act as they do. Here, Ginger is a former hooker who for some reason cannot let go of her pimp (played by James Woods) and becomes a drug fiend. Despite this, Rothstein inexplicably lavishes her with expensive jewelry and trusts her with $2 million in cash.
Now even though I’ve outlined several things I didn’t care for, that’s not to say I didn’t like Casino. I did. It just frustrated me that there was so much potential for greatness and the film is unable to completely deliver. It’s also quite violent, including a scene where Nicky literally causes a man’s eyeball to pop out while being subjected to a vise crushing his head. There are obvious parallels to Pesci’s Goodfellas character’s penchant for violence. This violence doesn’t bother me, but it does seem somewhat like an attempt to top what occurred in the previous film.
Though deeply flawed, Casino is an often enjoyable film best enjoyed by those who like Scorsese’s films. Scorsese is near the top of my list of active directors, but Casino is probably near the bottom of his “good” films. I don’t think it would make my personal top 10 of his films, though even at a bloated three hours, this film can be fun to watch. Just don’t be disappointed that it’s not up to par with Goodfellas or Raging Bull.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?