Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 17
  2. Negative: 1 out of 17
  1. 100
    Scorsese tells his story with the energy and pacing he's famous for, and with a wealth of little details that feel just right.
  2. 88
    Several flaws, mostly minor, keep Casino on a plateau slightly below that of the director's best (Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas).
  3. 90
    Whether or not Casino meets your expectations, it delivers the rush you only get from an audacious gamble.
  4. It's an ambitious film -- but also a scattered, unfocused one.
  5. One of the ironies of Casino is that even though Scorsese is interested in the story's wider implications, he focuses so much energy on that unsavory romantic triangle that he and the film lose sight of the larger issues.
  6. Simultaneously quite watchable and passionless.
  7. Visually impressive, splendidly performed, thematically significant, this is a movie in full possession of every key cinematic asset except one -- a solid script. Casino is a polished vehicle with an untuned engine.
  8. You can't praise highly enough the contributions of the ensemble--De Niro and Pesci especially--but it's Scorsese's triumph. [22 November 1995, Tempo, p.1]
  9. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    88
    A 2-hour classic wrongfully stretched into three.
  10. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    60
    As anthropology, it's fascinating, and everything about the production is first class. But the human drama at the heart of this movie is stillborn.
  11. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    80
    So long as Casino stays focused on the excesses -- of language, of violence, of ambition -- in the life-styles of the rich and infamous, it remains a smart, knowing, if often repetitive, spectacle.
  12. Of all the bravura visual effects in Martin Scorsese's dazzingly stylish Casino, it's a glimpse of ordinary people that delivers the greatest jolt. [22 November 1995, p.C9]
  13. Reviewed by: John Hartl
    70
    This might have been a very good movie if it had lost about one of its three hours.
  14. Reviewed by: Sean Means
    90
    Eye-popping, exhilarating and occasionally a bit stomach-churning.
  15. Reviewed by: Staff(not credited)
    60
    An accomplished film that carries with it the unshakable feeling that we've seen it all before.
  16. Reviewed by: Staff (Not credited)
    100
    Possesses a stylistic boldness and verisimilitude that is virtually matchless.
User Score
8.4

Universal acclaim- based on 147 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 44
  2. Negative: 1 out of 44
  1. Oct 31, 2011
    7
    Martin Scorsese's "Casino" is good looking and slick in structure with plenty of good actors performing. However, I didn't watch the whole movie; I knew nothing was going to change during the whole movie. Full Review »
  2. Mar 23, 2011
    10
    Just when you think you've had enough of Martin Scorcese's gangster movies, comes this captivating new thrill - Casino! Scorcese has Robert de Niro subtle, meticulous, and ruthless, Joe Pesci is every inch the tough-guy gangster who never backs down, but has a temper that is rather too immature and loose. Sam Rothstein (de Niro's character) is efficient and serves his bosses well - he's always sending the goodies back home! Sharon Stone's Ginger is a wreck, drug-induced, unstable, irrational, and apparently, very stupid. Now, how did she lure Rothstein's cool cat personality to fall for her? That's everyday life for you - the smart, cool ones do fall for those types - beautiful, with a personality and body to match, until the gold sheens off the statuette day by day. Pesci's fight scenes are brutal, but real. There is no pretence in these scenes - there is enough violence in the world to disguise such brutal depictions on celluloid. I enjoyed the desert scene, when Rothstein captures the essence in his narration as Pesci's character races through the desert - you didn't know what you could get from Pesci's character. Casino is just a magnificently handled subject, Scorcese has not gone over the top or over-done it, it's impeccably handled, the actors are just apt in their parts, and it is just fascinating to see how the gulf spreads between de Niro and Pesci's characters. Thumps up for Casino - if I may dare say it, it surpasses Goodfellas in its power and impact, and ultimately overpowers Scorcese's later movie, The Departed. Yes it does, I'm betting on it....with Sam Rothstein's back-from-the-dead character on the line! Full Review »
  3. Mar 5, 2014
    9
    Scorsese keeps coming back to the same theme and subject matter_ debauchery and its pitfalls. And he has found himself actors who are able to convey his message effectively. Casino deals with this subject in the business of gambling.

    Sam Rothstein (Robert De Niro) is doing good running a casino for the Mafia in 1970s Las Vegas. Things get tricky as first Ginger (Sharon Stone) and then Nicky (Joe Pesci) come into his life. They're both unstable and careless, and have no vision for their futures like Sam has. Their antics get him into trouble time and again.

    Like Scorsese's other movies, the plot takes a backstage to the characters and their personal quirky moments. He instead relies on multiple voice-overs to propel the plot forward. The plot does thicken with time, and not for good. It felt like he wasn't sure if he should concentrate on the characters or the plot development. Goodfellas found that balance ingeniously, so did his later movie The Wolf of Wall Street, both of which deal with the same themes.

    The acting was sufficient, I suppose. De Niro does a decent enough job. Pesci's character is too similar to the one he played in Goodfellas. In essence, he is a character actor. Sharon Stone also did a good job.

    I couldn't feel excited during a single scene in the entire movie. There was no sense of danger and urgency, despite the breakneck pacing. The film was just a scene after scene of greed, violence and narration. It got old after a while.

    The production design, which brought the 1970s to life, did a wonderful job. The same camera angles were used as were in Goodfellas. The camera zooms in on people's faces the same way.

    I found the movie a bit underwhelming. I felt like Scorsese wasn't done with the subject that he started out to tell in Goodfellas, and hence returned to it. He should have just made a single movie about it, or he should have made this one so different from the first that no one could have found any similarities.
    Full Review »