While this film is just a rehash of the far superior Goodfellas, it's still a pretty good film on it's own. It features plenty of memorable diolague and the baseball bat scene is just brutal! Joe Pesci is also superb. It gets a...

B+

A well done film along the lines of Goodfellas. Though perhaps not as good as the classic Goodfellas, Casino stands well on its own. Like Goodfellas, Casino is also based on a true events of how the mob ran Las Vegas in the 70s and 80s.

A-

I loved this movie. Sharon Stone gives a very convincing performance, and I loved her in this. Robert De Niro is also really good, as is Joe Pesci. One of my favorite Martin Scorsese films!

A

while not up to par with goodfellas, it's still a great movie

B+

It's not quite Goodfellas, but it's usual, excellent Scorsese. A-

Good, but not one of Scorcese's best.

B+

Flawed and too long, but well-made and at times fascinating. Sharon Stone's incredible performance is both the highlight of the film and the best work Stone has done and likely will ever do. B+

Rewatched this just last week for the 1st time since it came out and LOVED it. Nothing touches Goodfellas but this comes damn close.

Grade A+

9/10

Sharon Stone is hot in this one

I have not seen very many of Scorsese's films but after seeing this I think it would have to rank in the lower echelon of his portfolio.

This films has no business being nearly 3 hours long. It drags a lot and there are many, many scenes that could have been cut to shorten it's running length. The subject matter also hardly requires the amount of screen time used to tell the story. Scorsese's own 'The Departed' was much shorter and much more effective. (I don't compare Goodfellas because I haven't seen it)

The performances by Pesci and Stone are especially noteworthy whilst De Niro is decent. However there really seems to be no real solid plot for a three hour movie. It already starts out with De Niro already running the casino and Pesci enters almost immediately after too. Then, the actions of both are questionable and really, no one is actually hunting after either at all until it gets out of hand towards the end. The elaborate way the Teamsters get money out and having a figurehead boss etc are just pointless and the links between many of the supposed plot points are loose.

My take on the story is: A man with a troubled past (that is insignificant and pointless) is hired to run a casino with his best friend watching out for his back (though there is no need to) so that he can make money for a group of old schemers (that have absolutely no security or power).

There are no stakes, there is no thrill, there isn't much style either so my grade is a B- which could drop over time.

Its a very even film that just slowly tells a story

Great acting, Great Story and in the end it becomes a bit epic

A-

It's very good and very Scorsese. Goodfellas was the worst thing to happen to it. Without Goodfellas, Casino is probably top 40 of all time famous. I think they're pretty close though. And I like it more than Raging Bull.

It is too long though

It's good, but frankly any film about old school Vegas would have been great, the source material is great, and all the actors and direction are up to the task at hand. Overall, it is a little long, and could have used one more cut as Scorcese seems to have a little bit of trouble letting going of other scenes. The mixed narration works for the most part as well.

B+

I haven't seen this since it first came out, but it would've been one of my candidates for MovieDude's Soul Crushing Disappointment thread.

I'm not sure I completely buy into "Had Goodfellas not been made, Casino would be the beloved '90s Scorsese crime epic" angle. Casino is certainly an enthralling movie with flashy cinematography, confident performances, an insane soundtrack, etc., but it's also slightly removed. Cold, even. It doesn't have the emotional depth/resonance of Goodfellas or Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. It's more of a...vibe/groove type deal.

Sharon Stone is still the best thing about Casino.