Lmao! Good one. Ebert may have had too many blueberries in his, but I gotta go with Roger on this one. Casino isn't as solid as Godfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but it certainly is a fine film, deserving of a 👍.
+gun1987gunn Ya, its pretty shocking considering a thumbs down means you don't think people should see the film. Can you imagine telling people not to see Casino cuz it's got minor redundancy issues with Goodfellas? Marty basically gave us what we shouldn't of ever had...Goodfellas on Speed. When I first saw this movie I was around 12 years old...The images of pain and brutal nature of the film have never left me.
it's interesting because i felt exactly the same way as siskel when i saw casino. i just felt that i'd seen it all before, and it was just an excuse to get de niro and pesci to reprise the roles they'd played in goodfellas, pesci in particular played almost exactly the same character. there was nothing in the film that was a particular revelation...i know casinos exist to take money off people. by the time it came out i think we'd established that mafiosa are brutal and unforgiving. i know that taking drugs often doesn't work out well. i know that all kinds of unscrupulous characters are attracted to las vegas. i also agree with siskel that the love story angle between de niro and stone's characters was unconvincing, and stone was a pretty archetypal character anyway. and the fact that she was vulnerable to her pimp had already been done with jodie foster in taxi driver. there were one or two nifty scenes, de niro and pesci are still compelling, but as a piece of cinema or art it pales next to goodfellas and offers little new, and taught me nothing that i didn't know already. and also these are very unsympathetic characters, it's impossible to root for any of them. when joe pesci gets killed, we don't care because he's an appalling human being. when de niro gets screwed over, he's already shown himself to be a bully, so we don't care. sharon stone's character is a manipulative user, so we don't care when she ends up in the gutter. james woods' character is equally completely exploitative, so we don't care when he gets beaten up. there is no-one to root for, there is no heart nor moral position at the core of the story. that's how i felt about it anyway.
You got to remember Casino came out a few years after Good fellas and many people did not like it or thought it was ok they wanted a sequel to Good felllas , now many critics and people consider it a Master piece.
To me, Casino has always been a 'spiritual' sequel to Goodfellas, and that's not a bad thing at all. Great performances all around, Sharon Stone shined in this flick.
Replying to a comment from ten years ago seems weird but yea you nailed that. Its the peak of the mountain for the mob and this movie does a great of example of showing despite the cleverness of the mob and the tactics they used they had essentially created something they could never sustain because of how they started it. Nicky couldn't kick enough asses to keep the riff raff out, ace couldn't bend the rules in their favor enough, the bosses couldn't exert control over the massive empire, and ginger was a perfect example of being consumed by all of it.
Siskel was out to lunch - like GoodFellas, Casino gets better over time and can be watched repeatedly as there are so many moving parts and incredible attention to detail not to mention amazing acting
no, siskel has a point and thats why this show is so brilliant. i have goodfellas virtually memorized. found no reason to watch casino more than twice.
The deal is the same techniques were used in Casino as Goodfellas. On first view that's what you see. On repeated views, like Chinatown, you get the vast scope of the story.
It isn’t Scorsese’s best, but it damn sure isn’t a thumbs down. It’s a 3 hour film that goes by in a blink, and is incredibly rewatchable. The performances are great, and the set and costume designs are out of this world. I could watch the film over and over just to admire the watches they put on DeNiro.
Why do people have to think a movie is boring because it is less action packed. Same thing with breaking bad and better call saul. Also I have to say the only reason you feel it's similar to a Tarantino movie is because it has a yellowish contrasted look. Plus I'm sure it was filmed on the same camera most film makers used in the 90's, just an assumption.
@@alexpilgrim8248 No love from either one of them over Color of Money. Ebert only gave Cape Fear three stars so he did not always love everything Scorsese did with high marks. New York, New York is another one Ebert gave three stars to...not sure what Siskel thought of it
Joe Pesci will never get the credit he deserves for the critical detail he added in his acting for this movie. He used a Chicago accent, he could've used his normal north jersey accent and 99% of the viewers would've never noticed. Outstanding as always Joe!
Wow. I noticed the change in accent but I didn't know it was specifically a Chicago accent. It sounded like whenever he'd do a cowboy impression in Goodfellas so I thought that was the inspiration
It's like an underrated classic. Goodfellas may be the best, but Casino had a unique style that seemed to mesh well with Las Vegas and the time period the film goes through.
I think had Martin Scorsese used actors other than Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci (especially him), critics, like Gene Siskel, would've been reluctant to view "Casino" as a "Goodfellas" copycat. Lucky, it grew very, very well with time.
interesting; didn't watch it when it came out, or saw part of it; maybe the timing idk, but 15 years later, wow...stunning and still watching, many, many, more times than goodfellas.
Casino is by far my favorite movie. I've seen Goodfellas but in Goodfellas you don't get a performance from DeNiro like you do in Casino. Joe Pesci kept me excited the entire movie. Shots were extremely beautiful. Acting was, in my opinion, spot on. This movie is an example of great story telling leaving no questions.
The thing that pissed me off most about Siskel is his comment that scorsese has told this story in "much more exciting ways"... While the characterizations and relationships were similar to much of Scorsese's other work I think Casino is not only one of his most exhilarating pictures but one of the most exhilarating pictures in Cinema. It makes 3 hours go by in what feels like minutes
Their Full Metal Jacket review is literally the same exact thing except their opinions are reversed. Gene: For you to give thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket I think is a gross mistake. Roger: I'm putting it into a context where I'm telling people that this is not Kubrick at his best. Roger: For you to tell people not to see Martin Scorsese's Casino is shocking to me. Gene: I'm really grading this as a piece of work by Scorsese and this is not his best.
Both are great films. Ebert was right about Casino. Siskel was right about Full Metal Jacket. I believe they both have a thumbs down to Reservoir Dogs which I think is ridiculous.
I like hearing his opinion even if it differs wildly from my own. They very much play good cop bad cop. Eberts far more objective. Siskel tends to go with his feelings and not much more but it's kind of what I like about him at least as far as entertainment they provide is concerned
@@Bladerunner-yd5lk I agree with you about Siskel, though I feel that Ebert has also been pretty emotional in his reviews -- like Friday the 13th, the Final Chapter.
For me, one of the most impressive aspects of this movie was that I was totally engaged from start to finish even with it being 3 hours long. Not many movies can command a viewers attention for that long unless it's really good.
Right, no new ground was broken. But Casino elevated everything it borrowed from Goodfellas and other movies. That is why I think this is superior to most mob movies.
In a way, yes. It followed the same format as Goodfellas, but the real life Chicago-Vegas connection had so many interlocking levels of corruption, betrayal, and greed that it played out more like a Scorsese movie than Henry Hill's real life source material.
I don't know, I like Roger, but his opinion on Clockwork Orange, To Kill a Mockingbird and Usual Suspects will always be a puzzle for me, those are some of my favorites.
Julián Bufarull Yeah, he was wrong on all three of these those, even the Usual Suspects where he was a mildly good point, but truth is he was still off the mark there. They are all great films that he got wrong by a mile.
Again, being a female, meant the world to me to see Stone in detail. I liked Goodfellas alot but I can watch Casino over and over. I fall in love Ginger and I also think Lester played by the genius James Woods is one I long to see on the screen more. In real life somebody just told (she read the book) that Ginger had Lester's baby hence the pull? But Sam ended up adopting that baby and that is that.
I get where Siskel was coming from, some of the characters were familiar, but history has proven this to be one of the great films. So many memorable scenes.
They’re both right in their reviews. Yes, a lot of what was here we saw already in Goodfellas, the amount of info we learned was fascinating and there was the requisite brutality. Sharon Stone was very good, probably her best film. Pesci was playing pretty much the same guy he played in Goodfellas. IMO they could’ve cut about a half hour out and it would’ve been a much tighter and better film
I was going to film school when Casino came out, and Scorcese was my film professor's favorite director. His take on the film is that it was kind of a failure, but a failure made by someone of Scorcese's stature still had some amazing things in it.
I agree, but Siskel's reaction made sense at the time. Casino is a movie that gets better on rewatch and on first viewing it does feel a bit similar to Goodfellas, and a tad too long. Obviously, it's ridiculous to say that those flaws make the movie not worth watching, but I can see where he was coming from.
I moved to Vegas in 1980. This movie is basically a chronicle of the Stardust and the players who brought it down. Tony Spilatro (Pesci) was still going around killing people or just beating them up. The papers were full of the legal wrangling of casino ownership. The love story? Who knows or cares how accurate that was? It was well told. I recall reading about The Ant being found in a corn field. The brutality of that scene stays with you.
This movie is so damn immersive.I don't know if this ever happened to anyone but it was so immersed that i realized that it would be narrated from top to bottom after 20 mins and by then I was too hooked and was not at all distracted and evntually the narration aspect grew on me.
Some people don't like Scorsese because he revisits the same themes many times, but for me the proof of his true genius is how he can revisit them always in a creative away
Exactly! A lot of the themes such as religion and faith/redemption, organised crime and flawed and volatile male characters are spotted throughout his films and often intertwined but with different perspectives and views. One of the many reasons Scorsese is one of the greatest directors to have ever lived!
I always liked Casino a little bit more than Goodfellas, despite both portraying the mob in generally the same light. Goodfellas was already somewhat familiar to me having grown up in northern NJ and having to listen to my dad's stories about his cousins and other guys he knew who were involved in those circles. I found the far-removed (from myself at least) glitz & glamour--or at least, the facade thereof--of the mob in Vegas far more interesting than the scrappier, dingier east coast equivalent.
So, it was too violent for Gene? I'm with Roger on this one. Casino is one of my favorite movies of all-time and yes, I like it even better than Goodfellas. No contest for me.
This is weird for me. I felt like Gene first: I thought it was a trivial movie, almost embarrassing to watch. But it has then become one of my favorite movie... more correctly I love some scenes of this movie.
Daniel Maler I ABS0LUTLY AGREE With You!!!!!! Casino Is My ABS0LUTE ALL TIME FAVORITE Movie!!!! I Have It 0n DVD And I've Seen It 0VER 30 Times!!!! I Can Almost Quote It Word For Word!!!!!
I kinda saw Siskel’s point at the time that we’ve seen everything in mob movies but as I watched this movie more times I really enjoyed it and it adds substantially to the genre. The sopranos 4 years later really showed there’s much more to add to the mob story. So history shows Ebert was spot on.
Some people coined this film " Good fellas 2 " because of Pesci's character was similar to the one he played in film . This is the world of Vegas before they changed it . I liked the film , Don Rickles cracks me up just looking at him .
Casino was one of the greatest gangster movies of all time!!!! Since the movie has come out there have been COUNTLESS documentaries about what has happened reinforcing what the Scorsese put in the movie! This movie gave an INSIDE LOOK of how the mafia operated a casino, and he gave it a THUMBS DOWN?????? Casino is a TOP 10 mafia movie!!!! HANDS DOWN!!
Siskel had to realize that this story was fact-based, this is a great film not as good as GoodFellas. Sharon Stone should of won an Oscar, her performance was one of the best if not the best female performances.
I fully agree! Sharon's acting in this film is among the best female roles in film history, in my opinion she should have won the Oscar for best actress in '96, but this year was super-competed in that category, any of the nominees could win, but I think Sharon's performance was better.
Sorry I disagree, Goodfellas is over rated, movie was good but Casino is great. Casino had better and more interesting story, visually it was stunning to watch and acting was superb. I can't think of 1 bad thing about Casino, the movie is perfect.
Disagree wrt to Sharon Stone's performance. I'll admit, she pushed herself, but she DOES NOT have the acting chops to keep up with these (other) actors. She was the WEAK link in an otherwise very good film.
@@arthurbishop3173 Nonsense. Stone was the standout. Everybody else is playing characters they've already played before. Her meltdown is the highlight of the film.
I have no doubt that Siskel would have watched it again, maybe 10 years later, and change his opinion. It has happened plenty with both of them and I can't imagine Casino not being one of them.
Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boognie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol... siskel never "got" what movies were all about
I agree, although if you want to cheat and keep them all on the same level, Scorcese has said that he considers Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino to be an informal trilogy. Mean Streets deals with the street level, Goodfellas on a larger scale; and Casino is the top of the top (the Bosses that ran Vegas with Teamsters Pension funds from Kansas City). I love them all (less so Mean Streets but I still appreciate it), but I really admire the triple protagonist structure and epic complexity of Casino. And just how insane it got out there, and how the charater flaws of each character combined to get the mob permanently kicked out of Vegas. I also read the book by Nicolas Pileggi....amazingly, the true story was even more insane than the movie. Scorsese actually *toned it down* if you can believe it!
Lol that's pretty nuts. And that's interesting about the idea that those films make a trilogy. I didn't know that. I'm not personally a great fan of Mean Streets as I find most of his films to be much better.
David Brent Yeah I remember reading that in an interview book way back in the day while browsing in the film section of a large bookstore that unfortunately is no longer with us and I also found that interesting. Not a specific trilogy, mind you, but an informal or thematic trilogy. I too tend not to go back to Mean Streets that often but I appreciate it for what it was. It was made in 1972, his 2nd film...of course he evolved into a top shelf master director by the time Goodfellas came out in 1990. But you can see some of the elements that he'd use is later movies...like the 60's soundtrack, the unpredictable acts of irrational violence...and ingenious camera work (like the POV of Harvey Keitel wasted in the bar). I have only seen Mean Streets maybe twice but I've seen both Goodfellas and Casino at least 20 times each over the years....both indisputable masterpieces!
how can you choose or compare.. Goodfellas is a timeless classic.. Casino is a master piece.. Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boogie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol.
southsidesman As I said, there is a mysterious attraction towards this movie. It grabbed me after the initial thought that this was below Scrosese`s level.... so in the end , I liked it.
Zegeebwah I ABS0LUTLY AGREE!!!! Gene Siskel Is 0ut 0f His Mind!!! Casino Is My ABS0LUTE FAV0URITE Movie 0f ALL Time!!!! I've Got It 0n DVD. And I Can Quote It Almost Word For Word!!!!
You have to look at it as a Trilogy... Mean Streets is about "The Kids"... Goodfellas is "The Kids have grown up"... And Casino is "The Grown Ups have matured"... For me this is the greatest cinematic trilogy of the Western World...
I think Gene needed to rewatch this movie again after some time and hopefully give it a thumbs up it deserves. Just because it wasn't better than Goodfellas, doesn't mean it's a bad movie
At the time Casino seemed like Siskel says I have seen this before. Ebert agreed to a point, but was impressed by the filmmaking as was Siskel. It is now twenty plus years and Casino holds up very well. The acting is magnificent, the storytelling is riveting and the film work is spectacular.
Hmmm this dispute is very VERY similar to that of when they reviewed Full Metal Jacket. Gene was saying that it was similar to Platoon but from a different yet effective point of view and gave it thumbs up. And Roger gave it thumbs down for being just the same story about Vietnam, BUT HERE he says Casino is a familiar story but told a different way. HA! Quite the inconsistency. Still a fan though RIP both of them
The heart of Casino is the music. About 90% of the movie is quality music flowing from one song to next and a brilliant backdrop to the rhythm of the story.
Casino is a masterpiece, Goodfellas is an excellent movie as well but from all the glitter and the fake relationships, I think Casino has a much stronger "fall from grace" punch to all of the characters and the mob as well. Both are fantastic pieces of work but I personally love Casino a bit more, disagree entirely with Siskel here.
I watched this in theaters and the place was packed, had a great time lol great film! 😢 12/31/22 Happy New year
9 лет назад
Siskel is right on the money. It was the first time Scorsese´s editor, the great Thelma Schoonmaker, decided to cut the film digitally, so it was an experiment for both of them. Casino has some great, great moments, but it´s like a remake of Goodfellas, a much superior film.
I sort of agree with Siskel on this one. Having said that, if Goodfellas had not have been made then Casino would be considered a classic. Marty is a victim of his own standards.
Mick G Ebert was totally right on this one, you need to watch it again. I watched it back in 2018 and it’s great, maybe could’ve been a little shorter, but I didn’t mind Sharon Stone and thought her performance was fine, everything else is on par with Goodfellas though. It’s not his best movie, but again besides Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Taxi, what is?
@lyndon chastain So he's popular because he's a contrarian? His job was to screen films and give his opinion to the masses. If the masses disagreed with his opinion, how effective was he at his job?
@@LT4Nova 😁 His job was to give objective views of films, not to tell you what you want to hear, so he was very good at his job. McDonalds isn't cordon bleu in quality just because "the masses" choose to feed themselves there.
@ImCallingJapan If by "masses" you are saying, the vast majority of trained culinary experts...ok. His job was to screen films and recommend them to the masses. The masses disagreed with many of his choices, and with that said, how good was he at his job? Conversely, Ebert nailed a bunch, so I take it he's no better. They're both just as good? Many of the films he missed on went on to both financial and critical acclaim. Does McDonlads menu get critically acclaimed awards?
@@LT4Nova IMO, what I said was self-explanatory. Nobody is saying you can't enjoy a movie, but Siskel gave his honest opinion based on a career of film analysis. If you disagree, that's your problem.
Martin Scorsese is unique in a way because I can't really think of a bad film he has ever been involved with. True, some may have worked less well than others, but there is something of interest in all his films. Same, for me, with David Cronenberg; and, even though he's not your traditional idea of an 'auteur', James Cameron's films are usually involving and visually stunning, even if you do have to put up with a rubbish love story in some of 'em :)
That necessarily make it good though. There are a lot of bad movies based on true events. You need to find the right angle from which to show the facts of the story. I loved Casino. I think, whether it was true or not, it is fantastic story and a fantastic movie. But the general proposition that the plot of a movie based on a true story is immune to criticism doesn't really hold up.
Casino is the best double feature with goodfellas. The main difference between the 2 movies is that goodfellas is more of a character study, and casino is more of a mob operation study
