Review- Casino
Why am I reviewing a film from 20 years ago that bears seemingly no relevance to anything. Short answer, I wasn't sure what to do. Long answer, it's my prom next week, the theme is Casino so I thought I'd tie it all together with the film Casino. I wish I'd just made up some Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson themed holiday and written about that instead.
Casino is a film by Martin Scorcsese starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci as thugs who work their way up the pecking order of a bunch of other thugs. No, it's not Goodfellas. Goodfellas was... Well, good. This just isn't. It's the story of how Robert De Niro works his way up the ladder and stays there. I'm not really sure what else happens. It's amazing how little of three hours sticks with you but Casino is clearly the film that proves that a film being longer doesn't make it any better, or it would be if Boyhood didn't exist.
I'll start with the positives. Robert De Niro is not bad. He plays the typical De Niro character. Gruff, uncaring, cool. But that's all he does. It's not one of his best. He's serviceable and if you're a fan you'll be pleased but I was slightly more than indifferent. Joe Pesci is also servicable. If you saw Goodfellas, you've seen this role before. What's more, you've seen it better. He swears and stabs and shouts his way through the film. That's it. I think that's pretty much as far as the positives go so lets get digging in the mine of junk.
For a start, the characters are unlikable. While Pesci and De Niro act well, their characters are just unlikable. That might well be deliberate but it's not great at engaging your audience. The characters aren't even likable in their hatred. They're just utter shit. The worst offender is Sharon Stone. It's a classic example of bad female writing but regardless, Stone doesn't do the role any favours. She's shouting or crying or shouting and crying. So annoying. If a film makes you stop caring about it's characters just under a third through, that's bad. But if that film is three hours long, you have a catastrophe.
But personally, the biggest crime here is the film's structure. You know those montage bits from Goodfellas that looked slick and cool and helped to break up the violence? That's a good 80% of the film, good being in quotation marks. What this film taught me is that I was wrong when watching Goodfellas and I said "Man, I could watch a whole film just of these bits". It's difficult because on their own, these bits are good. They're classic Scorsese and they look great. You have good direction, superb song choice (Gimme Shelter, Go Your Own Way and Without You all make scenes entertaining) and wonderful camera work. Unfortunately, you can't just throw a bunch of these together and say "Look, I made a film!". I wish there was actual meat on this bone because as decent as these bits were, these should be interspersed through the film, not the other way around. It's a solid argument for substance over style because as nice as something looks, it can't just look nice for three hours and hope to hold an audience.
Casino makes me sad. It makes me sad because I adore some of Scorsese's other work like Goodfellas and The Wolf of Wall Street. Casino should have been another sure fire hit for a stylish director and according to IMDb, it is. This film is apparently the 140th best film ever made. Do not believe the hype. Martin Scorsese had the perfect hand but he folded. This film is a wasted opportunity. It shouldn't feel like a knock off of Goodfellas but unfortunately, it does. I'd rather watch Boyhood again than have to see this film any more. That's why I have to give Casino a
Casino is a film by Martin Scorcsese starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci as thugs who work their way up the pecking order of a bunch of other thugs. No, it's not Goodfellas. Goodfellas was... Well, good. This just isn't. It's the story of how Robert De Niro works his way up the ladder and stays there. I'm not really sure what else happens. It's amazing how little of three hours sticks with you but Casino is clearly the film that proves that a film being longer doesn't make it any better, or it would be if Boyhood didn't exist.
I'll start with the positives. Robert De Niro is not bad. He plays the typical De Niro character. Gruff, uncaring, cool. But that's all he does. It's not one of his best. He's serviceable and if you're a fan you'll be pleased but I was slightly more than indifferent. Joe Pesci is also servicable. If you saw Goodfellas, you've seen this role before. What's more, you've seen it better. He swears and stabs and shouts his way through the film. That's it. I think that's pretty much as far as the positives go so lets get digging in the mine of junk.
For a start, the characters are unlikable. While Pesci and De Niro act well, their characters are just unlikable. That might well be deliberate but it's not great at engaging your audience. The characters aren't even likable in their hatred. They're just utter shit. The worst offender is Sharon Stone. It's a classic example of bad female writing but regardless, Stone doesn't do the role any favours. She's shouting or crying or shouting and crying. So annoying. If a film makes you stop caring about it's characters just under a third through, that's bad. But if that film is three hours long, you have a catastrophe.
But personally, the biggest crime here is the film's structure. You know those montage bits from Goodfellas that looked slick and cool and helped to break up the violence? That's a good 80% of the film, good being in quotation marks. What this film taught me is that I was wrong when watching Goodfellas and I said "Man, I could watch a whole film just of these bits". It's difficult because on their own, these bits are good. They're classic Scorsese and they look great. You have good direction, superb song choice (Gimme Shelter, Go Your Own Way and Without You all make scenes entertaining) and wonderful camera work. Unfortunately, you can't just throw a bunch of these together and say "Look, I made a film!". I wish there was actual meat on this bone because as decent as these bits were, these should be interspersed through the film, not the other way around. It's a solid argument for substance over style because as nice as something looks, it can't just look nice for three hours and hope to hold an audience.
Casino makes me sad. It makes me sad because I adore some of Scorsese's other work like Goodfellas and The Wolf of Wall Street. Casino should have been another sure fire hit for a stylish director and according to IMDb, it is. This film is apparently the 140th best film ever made. Do not believe the hype. Martin Scorsese had the perfect hand but he folded. This film is a wasted opportunity. It shouldn't feel like a knock off of Goodfellas but unfortunately, it does. I'd rather watch Boyhood again than have to see this film any more. That's why I have to give Casino a
Comments
Post a Comment