"Casino" had me yelling "That's come cool shit!" for three hours. I don't know, though, if that was Martin Scorsese's purpose for making the movie (ie, entertaining easily excitable fifteen year old boys thirsting for profane ultraviolence).The problem with "Casino" is that there are no down moments when the film can breathe; somebody's always shouting or shooting a gun or getting their eyeballs squeezed out like grapes while Joe Pesci sweats profusely.
He sweats ALOT.
Robert De Niro does not sweat. That's because he's not human. He's a coldly efficent machine with his controls set to Gamble, but since he is in fact a robot, there's never really much at stake. And no one to root for.
I was initially intrigued by his romance with Sharon Stone, but they're only happy for five minutes before she starts snorting cocaine and fucking Joe Pesci.
In my mind, I am better looking than Joe Pesci. Yet, Sharon Stone does not want to have sex with me. Something to think about.
Scorsese pulls out all the usual tricks, but they're starting to seem a little bit stale. Everytime I watch this movie, in my heart the feeling grows heavier that, unlike "Mean Streets" or "GoodFellas," he's not using his dazzle for some personal aesthetic satisfaction, but for the sheer THRILL of it.
But "Casino" is too long to be thrilling. Kind of a problem. I know Marty was going for the whole epic vibe, and I can admire the scope of the story, but I would have trimmed it by a good hour, hour and fifteen minutes. There really aren't enough characters to warrant a three hour running time."Casino" entertained me but did not satisfy me. It's too controlled, too empty, too obviously manufactured for cinematic rush. I like it, but I can't love it, 'cause I can't find my way under the skin of it.