Casino
User Score
8.4 out of 10

Universal acclaim- based on 105 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 98 out of 105
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 105
  3. Negative: 4 out of 105

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. DavidH.
    Jun 23, 2007
    3
    Its merits are few and far between. Badly shot (it looks ugly) and scarce in compelling performances. De Niro is his usual self, but displaying far less depth than in any other Scorcese role he's played. To have to watch the trials and tribulations of these lowlife characters for a merciless three hours is a massive chore. Like in the highly overrated, but superior Goodfellas, these characters are as glib and one-dimensional as they are amoral and this time around, it not only appears as if he has recreated the very same formula, but has in the process of creating such an ambitious project has devoted far too little time to skillful writing or even a sense of plausibility. Thus while Goodfellas palpable sense of realism compensated for the lack of dimension in its story, Casino fails miserably in both departments. What it appears we're left with is 180 minutes of lowest common denominator sleaze and violence. With not a single compelling character or any trace of inventiveness or ingenuity, viewers are expected to appreciate it on that back of its abundant display of sadistic blood-drenched spectacle. Well not this one.… Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
73 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 17
  3. Negative: 1 out of 17
  1. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    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).
    Read full review
  2. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    50
    It's an ambitious film -- but also a scattered, unfocused one.
    Read full review
  3. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    70
    Simultaneously quite watchable and passionless.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »