Rothstein gets his start as a sports oddsmaker in Chicago. His talent with numbers earns him the attention of the big boys in the mob, and he is assigned to handle the Vegas casinos because he looks like somebody who will handle things with an efficient, low-profile manner. For a while, that's exactly the way things play out. And then problems arise. First, in the form of Ginger; one glimpse of her on a TV monitor and he's smitten. He showers her with gifts and wants her to marry him, but she's just not quite sure she wants to settle down. Finally, he makes her an offer she can't refuse - this one involves cars, diamonds, furs, and more (including, most ominously, the key to his safety-deposit box).
The stars align for trouble when problem number 2 shows up in the form of Nicky Santoro, a guy Rothstein has known since they both kids in Chicago. But Nicky's the kind of trouble that likes to play rough - he comes to town with a freelance crew of his own and starts stirring things up. After he squeezes one guy's head in a vice, the word is out: he's the mob's new enforcer. As Rothstein's marital problems grow, he, Santoro, and Ginger form a bizarrely twisted love triangle. Bridges are burned (metaphorically of course), relationships are broken, and all the while the feds are circling, like sharks waiting for just a bit more blood in the water. When the house of cards falls, nobody walks away unscathed.
Scorsese did a number of interesting things with the film's visuals, which are almost dizzyingly stylized. But what I found intriguing was the way in which the story is narrated by both of its principal players - Rothstein and Santoro. It tracks both of them as Santoro moves from providing muscle to thinking he can provide more - in essence, that since Rothstein's character is only in place because of Santoro's muscle, that Rothstein is perhaps unnecessary. The characters conflict over the city is personified by their battle over Ginger as well; ultimately, it spirals out of the control of either man.
Article comments
1 - Eric Berlin
Great and balanced review, Bill. I'm on the side of the USA Today critic -- the film loses me in the second half as the pacing gets slow and the mood, frankly, gets depressing whereas Goodfellas (which, to be fair, may be just about my favorite movie of all time) whisks you along with montage and great music and, most importantly, darkly jubilant humor.
Compare, for example, Pesci shooting Michael Imperioli's foot in Goodfellas ("...whole family's a bunch of fucking rats...") with Stone finally succumbing to Pesci's wiles in Casino. They both come at about the same time (about two-thirds into each film) and I think it's a small but important example of where one becomes brilliant and the other solid but problematic.
The Duke and I had a lengthy discussion of the "Best Gangster Film of All Time" a while back that I've been meaning to work into a readable post. The main contenders seemed to be Goodfellas and The Godfather, but Casino came into the discussion a good little bit, mostly thanks to The Duke's affection for it.
I'll try to work it up soon.
2 - El Bicho
Was there an honorable mention for "Miller's Crossing"?
3 - Eric Berlin
No, I don't think it was mentioned, but that's a damned good movie!
4 - dietdoc
Bill writes: "It's hard to say exactly where Casino falls within the body of Scorsese's work, but it is a visually gripping glimpse into the brutal world of the Mafia's Las Vegas."
Reply: Bill, I think it's about midway down the list. At least, from my humble view, it's a "tweener." It's probably better than Gangs but no where near the first 3 movies you named.
It's a bit of a bottle rocket - I loved the first 60 minutes, liked the next 60 minutes, and went asleep for the last hour. But, with that cast, it's worth watching. And I'm a sucker for a gangster film, no matter what the drawbacks are.
And, Eric, did you guys just toss aside the old stuff? You gotta give props to Scarface (Paul Muni, not Pacino!)and Little Ceasar and Public Enemy, don't you? Surely, Edward G. Robinson and Cagney and Muni could hang with DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino! No?
Cheers,
Ron
Cheers,
Ron
5 - Eric Berlin
Ron - The Duke is more up on filmic lore than I, so he brought out a number of the classics. I'm an Edward G. Robinson fan myself -- I actually became interested in his films after I dated a girl who happened to be his step-granddaughter (it's a long story).
Nonetheless, I'm a captive of my generation so I must personally go with Goodfellas.
In one of my first every BC posts, I declared PCU to be the best Campus Comedy of all-time, which caused a bit of an uproar.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a split between Goodfellas / PCU folk and The Godfather / Animal House .
Or maybe I'm just insane.
6 - dietdoc
Eric writes: "I'll try to work it up soon."
Reply: I would love to participate in the discussion of this (and other) film genre. I think it would be very interesting. No one would change anyone's mind, but I would like to see some of these films with more than one set of optic nerves.
Cheers,
Ron
7 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
i have an idea for this, actually. or at least HOW such a thing could be done... Ron, are you in the BC mailing list?
8 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
oh, and with regards your review bill, great stuff, although i love this film dearly and didn't actually feel it was over-long at all. Gangs Of New York, mind, was a crushing dissapointment. i can't wait to get my hands on the special ed of this.
9 - DJRadiohead
This is not going to be particularly brave but I am with Eric on the virtues of "Goodfellas" as perhaps the greatest gangster film of all time.
I like "Casino." I can accept it might have been a little too long but I still think it was a good movie.
10 - DJRadiohead
I just re-read my own post and shocked by its banality (some of you who have read my other comments and posts might not be shocked). I am sorry. I will try to have a little more energy and insight next time I post. I actually feel a little better about things now because I took the piss out of myself. That is a nice change of pace.
11 - RJ
While I have enjoyed some MOB films in the past, and this is one of them, I am not completely enamored with the whole mob-movie genre.
Basically, mobsters are bottom-dwelling scum who prey on the weak and innocent in order to make a buck and make themselves feel powerful.
Therefore, I tend to dislike movies that in any way glamorize these criminal filth.
12 - dietdoc
Duke writes: "Ron, are you in the BC mailing list?"
Reply: No, I am not. Where do I sign up?
Cheers,
Ron
13 - dietdoc
Rj writes: "Therefore, I tend to dislike movies that in any way glamorize these criminal filth."
Reply: Most of the good ganster movies seldom are 100% in glorification of the underworld. Most show the tragedy that usually befalls those who follow this lifestyle.
They actually started, back in the early days of film (e.g. Public Enemy #1) as morality tales for the public. Disclaimers and such were usually attached. "Stop these public menaces in your town, before it's too late!" and the like.
I have yet to see a "gangster" movie that showed the protagonist as a shining example who comes out at the end of the film on a pedestal of virtue and positive ideals [Disclaimer: Admittedly, I don't watch the new "gangsta" movies and these are truly a new variety]. Usually, the lead roles fall into despair and victim of their own vices.
They usually, when all is said and done, are not a glorification of the lifestyle.
Cheers,
Ron
14 - Temple Stark
Bill Wallo, come on down.
The Blogcritics' editors liked this one and therefore it's a pick of the week. Congratulations and thank you. Put the news up proudly on your site. We've provided a handy button to do just that at the link below.
Here's a link to the rest of this week's picks and the reasons why.