Lmao! Good one. Ebert may have had too many blueberries in his, but I gotta go with Roger on this one. Casino isn't as solid as Godfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but it certainly is a fine film, deserving of a 👍.
+gun1987gunn Ya, its pretty shocking considering a thumbs down means you don't think people should see the film. Can you imagine telling people not to see Casino cuz it's got minor redundancy issues with Goodfellas? Marty basically gave us what we shouldn't of ever had...Goodfellas on Speed. When I first saw this movie I was around 12 years old...The images of pain and brutal nature of the film have never left me.
it's interesting because i felt exactly the same way as siskel when i saw casino. i just felt that i'd seen it all before, and it was just an excuse to get de niro and pesci to reprise the roles they'd played in goodfellas, pesci in particular played almost exactly the same character. there was nothing in the film that was a particular revelation...i know casinos exist to take money off people. by the time it came out i think we'd established that mafiosa are brutal and unforgiving. i know that taking drugs often doesn't work out well. i know that all kinds of unscrupulous characters are attracted to las vegas. i also agree with siskel that the love story angle between de niro and stone's characters was unconvincing, and stone was a pretty archetypal character anyway. and the fact that she was vulnerable to her pimp had already been done with jodie foster in taxi driver. there were one or two nifty scenes, de niro and pesci are still compelling, but as a piece of cinema or art it pales next to goodfellas and offers little new, and taught me nothing that i didn't know already. and also these are very unsympathetic characters, it's impossible to root for any of them. when joe pesci gets killed, we don't care because he's an appalling human being. when de niro gets screwed over, he's already shown himself to be a bully, so we don't care. sharon stone's character is a manipulative user, so we don't care when she ends up in the gutter. james woods' character is equally completely exploitative, so we don't care when he gets beaten up. there is no-one to root for, there is no heart nor moral position at the core of the story. that's how i felt about it anyway.
You got to remember Casino came out a few years after Good fellas and many people did not like it or thought it was ok they wanted a sequel to Good felllas , now many critics and people consider it a Master piece.
To me, Casino has always been a 'spiritual' sequel to Goodfellas, and that's not a bad thing at all. Great performances all around, Sharon Stone shined in this flick.
Siskel was out to lunch - like GoodFellas, Casino gets better over time and can be watched repeatedly as there are so many moving parts and incredible attention to detail not to mention amazing acting
no, siskel has a point and thats why this show is so brilliant. i have goodfellas virtually memorized. found no reason to watch casino more than twice.
The deal is the same techniques were used in Casino as Goodfellas. On first view that's what you see. On repeated views, like Chinatown, you get the vast scope of the story.
@@alexpilgrim8248 No love from either one of them over Color of Money. Ebert only gave Cape Fear three stars so he did not always love everything Scorsese did with high marks. New York, New York is another one Ebert gave three stars to...not sure what Siskel thought of it
Why do people have to think a movie is boring because it is less action packed. Same thing with breaking bad and better call saul. Also I have to say the only reason you feel it's similar to a Tarantino movie is because it has a yellowish contrasted look. Plus I'm sure it was filmed on the same camera most film makers used in the 90's, just an assumption.
It isn’t Scorsese’s best, but it damn sure isn’t a thumbs down. It’s a 3 hour film that goes by in a blink, and is incredibly rewatchable. The performances are great, and the set and costume designs are out of this world. I could watch the film over and over just to admire the watches they put on DeNiro.
Joe Pesci will never get the credit he deserves for the critical detail he added in his acting for this movie. He used a Chicago accent, he could've used his normal north jersey accent and 99% of the viewers would've never noticed. Outstanding as always Joe!
Wow. I noticed the change in accent but I didn't know it was specifically a Chicago accent. It sounded like whenever he'd do a cowboy impression in Goodfellas so I thought that was the inspiration
It's like an underrated classic. Goodfellas may be the best, but Casino had a unique style that seemed to mesh well with Las Vegas and the time period the film goes through.
I think had Martin Scorsese used actors other than Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci (especially him), critics, like Gene Siskel, would've been reluctant to view "Casino" as a "Goodfellas" copycat. Lucky, it grew very, very well with time.
interesting; didn't watch it when it came out, or saw part of it; maybe the timing idk, but 15 years later, wow...stunning and still watching, many, many, more times than goodfellas.
The thing that pissed me off most about Siskel is his comment that scorsese has told this story in "much more exciting ways"... While the characterizations and relationships were similar to much of Scorsese's other work I think Casino is not only one of his most exhilarating pictures but one of the most exhilarating pictures in Cinema. It makes 3 hours go by in what feels like minutes
Casino is by far my favorite movie. I've seen Goodfellas but in Goodfellas you don't get a performance from DeNiro like you do in Casino. Joe Pesci kept me excited the entire movie. Shots were extremely beautiful. Acting was, in my opinion, spot on. This movie is an example of great story telling leaving no questions.
I like hearing his opinion even if it differs wildly from my own. They very much play good cop bad cop. Eberts far more objective. Siskel tends to go with his feelings and not much more but it's kind of what I like about him at least as far as entertainment they provide is concerned
@@Bladerunner-yd5lk I agree with you about Siskel, though I feel that Ebert has also been pretty emotional in his reviews -- like Friday the 13th, the Final Chapter.
For me, one of the most impressive aspects of this movie was that I was totally engaged from start to finish even with it being 3 hours long. Not many movies can command a viewers attention for that long unless it's really good.
I get where Siskel was coming from, some of the characters were familiar, but history has proven this to be one of the great films. So many memorable scenes.
Their Full Metal Jacket review is literally the same exact thing except their opinions are reversed. Gene: For you to give thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket I think is a gross mistake. Roger: I'm putting it into a context where I'm telling people that this is not Kubrick at his best. Roger: For you to tell people not to see Martin Scorsese's Casino is shocking to me. Gene: I'm really grading this as a piece of work by Scorsese and this is not his best.
Both are great films. Ebert was right about Casino. Siskel was right about Full Metal Jacket. I believe they both have a thumbs down to Reservoir Dogs which I think is ridiculous.
I don't know, I like Roger, but his opinion on Clockwork Orange, To Kill a Mockingbird and Usual Suspects will always be a puzzle for me, those are some of my favorites.
Julián Bufarull Yeah, he was wrong on all three of these those, even the Usual Suspects where he was a mildly good point, but truth is he was still off the mark there. They are all great films that he got wrong by a mile.
Right, no new ground was broken. But Casino elevated everything it borrowed from Goodfellas and other movies. That is why I think this is superior to most mob movies.
In a way, yes. It followed the same format as Goodfellas, but the real life Chicago-Vegas connection had so many interlocking levels of corruption, betrayal, and greed that it played out more like a Scorsese movie than Henry Hill's real life source material.
This movie is so damn immersive.I don't know if this ever happened to anyone but it was so immersed that i realized that it would be narrated from top to bottom after 20 mins and by then I was too hooked and was not at all distracted and evntually the narration aspect grew on me.
Again, being a female, meant the world to me to see Stone in detail. I liked Goodfellas alot but I can watch Casino over and over. I fall in love Ginger and I also think Lester played by the genius James Woods is one I long to see on the screen more. In real life somebody just told (she read the book) that Ginger had Lester's baby hence the pull? But Sam ended up adopting that baby and that is that.
They’re both right in their reviews. Yes, a lot of what was here we saw already in Goodfellas, the amount of info we learned was fascinating and there was the requisite brutality. Sharon Stone was very good, probably her best film. Pesci was playing pretty much the same guy he played in Goodfellas. IMO they could’ve cut about a half hour out and it would’ve been a much tighter and better film
I moved to Vegas in 1980. This movie is basically a chronicle of the Stardust and the players who brought it down. Tony Spilatro (Pesci) was still going around killing people or just beating them up. The papers were full of the legal wrangling of casino ownership. The love story? Who knows or cares how accurate that was? It was well told. I recall reading about The Ant being found in a corn field. The brutality of that scene stays with you.
I was going to film school when Casino came out, and Scorcese was my film professor's favorite director. His take on the film is that it was kind of a failure, but a failure made by someone of Scorcese's stature still had some amazing things in it.
I agree, but Siskel's reaction made sense at the time. Casino is a movie that gets better on rewatch and on first viewing it does feel a bit similar to Goodfellas, and a tad too long. Obviously, it's ridiculous to say that those flaws make the movie not worth watching, but I can see where he was coming from.
I always liked Casino a little bit more than Goodfellas, despite both portraying the mob in generally the same light. Goodfellas was already somewhat familiar to me having grown up in northern NJ and having to listen to my dad's stories about his cousins and other guys he knew who were involved in those circles. I found the far-removed (from myself at least) glitz & glamour--or at least, the facade thereof--of the mob in Vegas far more interesting than the scrappier, dingier east coast equivalent.
Some people don't like Scorsese because he revisits the same themes many times, but for me the proof of his true genius is how he can revisit them always in a creative away
Exactly! A lot of the themes such as religion and faith/redemption, organised crime and flawed and volatile male characters are spotted throughout his films and often intertwined but with different perspectives and views. One of the many reasons Scorsese is one of the greatest directors to have ever lived!
I kinda saw Siskel’s point at the time that we’ve seen everything in mob movies but as I watched this movie more times I really enjoyed it and it adds substantially to the genre. The sopranos 4 years later really showed there’s much more to add to the mob story. So history shows Ebert was spot on.
Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boognie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol... siskel never "got" what movies were all about
Zegeebwah I ABS0LUTLY AGREE!!!! Gene Siskel Is 0ut 0f His Mind!!! Casino Is My ABS0LUTE FAV0URITE Movie 0f ALL Time!!!! I've Got It 0n DVD. And I Can Quote It Almost Word For Word!!!!
I have no doubt that Siskel would have watched it again, maybe 10 years later, and change his opinion. It has happened plenty with both of them and I can't imagine Casino not being one of them.
Some people coined this film " Good fellas 2 " because of Pesci's character was similar to the one he played in film . This is the world of Vegas before they changed it . I liked the film , Don Rickles cracks me up just looking at him .
Siskel had to realize that this story was fact-based, this is a great film not as good as GoodFellas. Sharon Stone should of won an Oscar, her performance was one of the best if not the best female performances.
I fully agree! Sharon's acting in this film is among the best female roles in film history, in my opinion she should have won the Oscar for best actress in '96, but this year was super-competed in that category, any of the nominees could win, but I think Sharon's performance was better.
Sorry I disagree, Goodfellas is over rated, movie was good but Casino is great. Casino had better and more interesting story, visually it was stunning to watch and acting was superb. I can't think of 1 bad thing about Casino, the movie is perfect.
Disagree wrt to Sharon Stone's performance. I'll admit, she pushed herself, but she DOES NOT have the acting chops to keep up with these (other) actors. She was the WEAK link in an otherwise very good film.
So, it was too violent for Gene? I'm with Roger on this one. Casino is one of my favorite movies of all-time and yes, I like it even better than Goodfellas. No contest for me.
This is weird for me. I felt like Gene first: I thought it was a trivial movie, almost embarrassing to watch. But it has then become one of my favorite movie... more correctly I love some scenes of this movie.
Daniel Maler I ABS0LUTLY AGREE With You!!!!!! Casino Is My ABS0LUTE ALL TIME FAVORITE Movie!!!! I Have It 0n DVD And I've Seen It 0VER 30 Times!!!! I Can Almost Quote It Word For Word!!!!!
Casino was one of the greatest gangster movies of all time!!!! Since the movie has come out there have been COUNTLESS documentaries about what has happened reinforcing what the Scorsese put in the movie! This movie gave an INSIDE LOOK of how the mafia operated a casino, and he gave it a THUMBS DOWN?????? Casino is a TOP 10 mafia movie!!!! HANDS DOWN!!
I agree, although if you want to cheat and keep them all on the same level, Scorcese has said that he considers Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino to be an informal trilogy. Mean Streets deals with the street level, Goodfellas on a larger scale; and Casino is the top of the top (the Bosses that ran Vegas with Teamsters Pension funds from Kansas City). I love them all (less so Mean Streets but I still appreciate it), but I really admire the triple protagonist structure and epic complexity of Casino. And just how insane it got out there, and how the charater flaws of each character combined to get the mob permanently kicked out of Vegas. I also read the book by Nicolas Pileggi....amazingly, the true story was even more insane than the movie. Scorsese actually *toned it down* if you can believe it!
Lol that's pretty nuts. And that's interesting about the idea that those films make a trilogy. I didn't know that. I'm not personally a great fan of Mean Streets as I find most of his films to be much better.
David Brent Yeah I remember reading that in an interview book way back in the day while browsing in the film section of a large bookstore that unfortunately is no longer with us and I also found that interesting. Not a specific trilogy, mind you, but an informal or thematic trilogy. I too tend not to go back to Mean Streets that often but I appreciate it for what it was. It was made in 1972, his 2nd film...of course he evolved into a top shelf master director by the time Goodfellas came out in 1990. But you can see some of the elements that he'd use is later movies...like the 60's soundtrack, the unpredictable acts of irrational violence...and ingenious camera work (like the POV of Harvey Keitel wasted in the bar). I have only seen Mean Streets maybe twice but I've seen both Goodfellas and Casino at least 20 times each over the years....both indisputable masterpieces!
how can you choose or compare.. Goodfellas is a timeless classic.. Casino is a master piece.. Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boogie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol.
@@arthurbishop3173 Nonsense. Stone was the standout. Everybody else is playing characters they've already played before. Her meltdown is the highlight of the film.
southsidesman As I said, there is a mysterious attraction towards this movie. It grabbed me after the initial thought that this was below Scrosese`s level.... so in the end , I liked it.
@lyndon chastain So he's popular because he's a contrarian? His job was to screen films and give his opinion to the masses. If the masses disagreed with his opinion, how effective was he at his job?
@@LT4Nova 😁 His job was to give objective views of films, not to tell you what you want to hear, so he was very good at his job. McDonalds isn't cordon bleu in quality just because "the masses" choose to feed themselves there.
@ImCallingJapan If by "masses" you are saying, the vast majority of trained culinary experts...ok. His job was to screen films and recommend them to the masses. The masses disagreed with many of his choices, and with that said, how good was he at his job? Conversely, Ebert nailed a bunch, so I take it he's no better. They're both just as good? Many of the films he missed on went on to both financial and critical acclaim. Does McDonlads menu get critically acclaimed awards?
@@LT4Nova IMO, what I said was self-explanatory. Nobody is saying you can't enjoy a movie, but Siskel gave his honest opinion based on a career of film analysis. If you disagree, that's your problem.
You have to look at it as a Trilogy... Mean Streets is about "The Kids"... Goodfellas is "The Kids have grown up"... And Casino is "The Grown Ups have matured"... For me this is the greatest cinematic trilogy of the Western World...
I think Gene needed to rewatch this movie again after some time and hopefully give it a thumbs up it deserves. Just because it wasn't better than Goodfellas, doesn't mean it's a bad movie
At the time Casino seemed like Siskel says I have seen this before. Ebert agreed to a point, but was impressed by the filmmaking as was Siskel. It is now twenty plus years and Casino holds up very well. The acting is magnificent, the storytelling is riveting and the film work is spectacular.
The heart of Casino is the music. About 90% of the movie is quality music flowing from one song to next and a brilliant backdrop to the rhythm of the story.
Hmmm this dispute is very VERY similar to that of when they reviewed Full Metal Jacket. Gene was saying that it was similar to Platoon but from a different yet effective point of view and gave it thumbs up. And Roger gave it thumbs down for being just the same story about Vietnam, BUT HERE he says Casino is a familiar story but told a different way. HA! Quite the inconsistency. Still a fan though RIP both of them
That necessarily make it good though. There are a lot of bad movies based on true events. You need to find the right angle from which to show the facts of the story. I loved Casino. I think, whether it was true or not, it is fantastic story and a fantastic movie. But the general proposition that the plot of a movie based on a true story is immune to criticism doesn't really hold up.
I sort of agree with Siskel on this one. Having said that, if Goodfellas had not have been made then Casino would be considered a classic. Marty is a victim of his own standards.
Mick G Ebert was totally right on this one, you need to watch it again. I watched it back in 2018 and it’s great, maybe could’ve been a little shorter, but I didn’t mind Sharon Stone and thought her performance was fine, everything else is on par with Goodfellas though. It’s not his best movie, but again besides Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Taxi, what is?
I love how in this review, I completely disagree with Siskel (I love Casino), but on the Fullmetal Jacket I completely disagree with Ebert. Just goes to show, there is no critic you can completely match in terms of taste
Some things I agre with Siskel and some with Ebert. I do think Scorsese played it safe in the film and Pesci and Deniro gave performances similar to before. However I think the relationship between Deniro and Stone is the best thing in the movie.
Cosplay Time Capsule I think Casino is great, deserves to be reassessed after all these years, better than overrated Braveheart that came out the same year.
No blueberries in Siskel's muffin. None. Zero. Nada.
Lmao! Good one. Ebert may have had too many blueberries in his, but I gotta go with Roger on this one. Casino isn't as solid as Godfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but it certainly is a fine film, deserving of a 👍.
AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF BLUEBERRIES 🫐
I am still laughing at your comment two days later. Brilliant!
Look at Ebert's muffin! It's falling apart!
Do you have any idea how long that's going to take?
Eberts is falling apart and Siskels has nothing……..
Ebert's reaction to Siskel giving it a thumbs down was basically mine.
+gun1987gunn Ya, its pretty shocking considering a thumbs down means you don't think people should see the film. Can you imagine telling people not to see Casino cuz it's got minor redundancy issues with Goodfellas? Marty basically gave us what we shouldn't of ever had...Goodfellas on Speed. When I first saw this movie I was around 12 years old...The images of pain and brutal nature of the film have never left me.
I paused the video right when Ebert began, just so I could come down here and make that very same observation. You beat me to it though.
it's interesting because i felt exactly the same way as siskel when i saw casino. i just felt that i'd seen it all before, and it was just an excuse to get de niro and pesci to reprise the roles they'd played in goodfellas, pesci in particular played almost exactly the same character. there was nothing in the film that was a particular revelation...i know casinos exist to take money off people. by the time it came out i think we'd established that mafiosa are brutal and unforgiving. i know that taking drugs often doesn't work out well. i know that all kinds of unscrupulous characters are attracted to las vegas.
i also agree with siskel that the love story angle between de niro and stone's characters was unconvincing, and stone was a pretty archetypal character anyway. and the fact that she was vulnerable to her pimp had already been done with jodie foster in taxi driver. there were one or two nifty scenes, de niro and pesci are still compelling, but as a piece of cinema or art it pales next to goodfellas and offers little new, and taught me nothing that i didn't know already.
and also these are very unsympathetic characters, it's impossible to root for any of them. when joe pesci gets killed, we don't care because he's an appalling human being. when de niro gets screwed over, he's already shown himself to be a bully, so we don't care. sharon stone's character is a manipulative user, so we don't care when she ends up in the gutter. james woods' character is equally completely exploitative, so we don't care when he gets beaten up. there is no-one to root for, there is no heart nor moral position at the core of the story.
that's how i felt about it anyway.
Siskel be trollin
You got to remember Casino came out a few years after Good fellas and many people did not like it or thought it was ok they wanted a sequel to Good felllas , now many critics and people consider it a Master piece.
The look on Ebert's face when Siskel said thumbs down was priceless.
Ebert is awesome.........the way he disagrees.
He articulates the gist of the movies better than anyone else. Either teaches me something I didn't think of or reinforces my thoughts.
fess04 98% of the time Ebert is on point! 💯
@@josephwilliams9209 The other 2% goes to his Home Alone 3 response.
To me, Casino has always been a 'spiritual' sequel to Goodfellas, and that's not a bad thing at all. Great performances all around, Sharon Stone shined in this flick.
You nailed it.
Siskel was out to lunch - like GoodFellas, Casino gets better over time and can be watched repeatedly as there are so many moving parts and incredible attention to detail not to mention amazing acting
no, siskel has a point and thats why this show is so brilliant. i have goodfellas virtually memorized. found no reason to watch casino more than twice.
The second half of this film was terrible while the first half was mesmerizing.
The deal is the same techniques were used in Casino as Goodfellas. On first view that's what you see. On repeated views, like Chinatown, you get the vast scope of the story.
Siskel did make some good points, but so did Ebert. Not Scorseses' best, but definitely warrants a thumbs up. Don Rickles was freaking superb.
Siskel’s arguments were sound but I think he was a little but too harsh because he has higher expectations for Scorcese films.
Hey I'm not the biggest fan of Casino but thumbs down? Really Gene? This is a thrilling film.
Too much fucking music, though. Super annoying.
It was a typical Siskel review. He loved to play the contrarian and find the most cliche complaint about a film and blow it out of proportion.
@@GlorifiedTruth That's what Scorsese does with his films.
@@Dane_Youssef Actually, not all of 'em. And the ones where he doesn't are some pretty good films.
Not the biggest fan??? I hate you
Man, I wish these guys had lived long enough to see “The Irishman”. I would have loved to read Ebert’s review of it.
Jason Bacon They would’ve loved it probably like I did.
Yep man feel sad
I think Ebert would've rated it with 4 stars. Even the weaker movies in Scorseses' filmography was admired by Ebert to the point of 4 stars.
@@alexpilgrim8248 No love from either one of them over Color of Money. Ebert only gave Cape Fear three stars so he did not always love everything Scorsese did with high marks. New York, New York is another one Ebert gave three stars to...not sure what Siskel thought of it
@@JerrySaraviaCinema1895 I think he also rated Kundun 3 stars
Casino is great--well worth seeing more than once. Glad it was made.
LEGEND wait for it... DAIRY!
Michael Smith its a classic
Why do people have to think a movie is boring because it is less action packed. Same thing with breaking bad and better call saul. Also I have to say the only reason you feel it's similar to a Tarantino movie is because it has a yellowish contrasted look. Plus I'm sure it was filmed on the same camera most film makers used in the 90's, just an assumption.
I have, many times: Scorsese films are watchable.
But i will never see the Last Temptation
@@jackmp4 I love Mafia movies.
Roger felt the same as me. Casino was a masterpiece. Beautiful cinematography, amazing dialogue, definitely one of Scorseses best films.
Agree, feels like a precursor to The Sopranos. Definitely moved the mob genre forward.
Definitely. I loved this movie. It's on a different plane compared to Goodfellas.
It isn’t Scorsese’s best, but it damn sure isn’t a thumbs down. It’s a 3 hour film that goes by in a blink, and is incredibly rewatchable. The performances are great, and the set and costume designs are out of this world. I could watch the film over and over just to admire the watches they put on DeNiro.
Yes. Yes. Yes to all your points.
Joe Pesci will never get the credit he deserves for the critical detail he added in his acting for this movie. He used a Chicago accent, he could've used his normal north jersey accent and 99% of the viewers would've never noticed. Outstanding as always Joe!
Wow. I noticed the change in accent but I didn't know it was specifically a Chicago accent. It sounded like whenever he'd do a cowboy impression in Goodfellas so I thought that was the inspiration
I actually thought it was a western Kansas accent which is where his character was from.
I remember critics not being too excited by Casino but I think now it's considered it one of Scorsese's best. I love it.
It's like an underrated classic. Goodfellas may be the best, but Casino had a unique style that seemed to mesh well with Las Vegas and the time period the film goes through.
I think had Martin Scorsese used actors other than Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci (especially him), critics, like Gene Siskel, would've been reluctant to view "Casino" as a "Goodfellas" copycat. Lucky, it grew very, very well with time.
It is incredibly interesting to watch. Jjst about whenever it comes on it compels me to watch
Without question one of his best and most re-watchable. It really is a masterpiece.
interesting; didn't watch it when it came out, or saw part of it; maybe the timing idk, but 15 years later, wow...stunning and still watching, many, many, more times than goodfellas.
casino is a fucking great movie
Just watch Casino first, then Goodfellas. No problem.
Fucken eh!
Nah
Some movies get better over the years like Casnio and Carltios Way.
Exactly.
Scarface gets worse each time I see it.
@@Kruppt808 carlito's way > scarface
My late dad was a fan of Mafia movie.
And Heat
Kruppt808 Scarface is a classic, move on dude.
We miss this show so much. RIP to both Robert and Gene.
The thing that pissed me off most about Siskel is his comment that scorsese has told this story in "much more exciting ways"... While the characterizations and relationships were similar to much of Scorsese's other work I think Casino is not only one of his most exhilarating pictures but one of the most exhilarating pictures in Cinema. It makes 3 hours go by in what feels like minutes
Casino was terrific, loved it then and still love it now. Gene was off on this one.
True; but i love it when people have strong opinions with reason then stick to it.
Respect
Good movie, but for a Scorsese flick it was lacking imo.
Terrific? why? I mean the actors were good but the script was just ok, just a cash grab
Casino is by far my favorite movie. I've seen Goodfellas but in Goodfellas you don't get a performance from DeNiro like you do in Casino. Joe Pesci kept me excited the entire movie. Shots were extremely beautiful. Acting was, in my opinion, spot on. This movie is an example of great story telling leaving no questions.
The thumbs down is laughable
You're wrong man! Gene Siskel is a god.
I like hearing his opinion even if it differs wildly from my own. They very much play good cop bad cop. Eberts far more objective. Siskel tends to go with his feelings and not much more but it's kind of what I like about him at least as far as entertainment they provide is concerned
@@Bladerunner-yd5lk I agree with you about Siskel, though I feel that Ebert has also been pretty emotional in his reviews -- like Friday the 13th, the Final Chapter.
It really is.....ridiculous
@@jonathanruano4973 Ebert gave a thumbs down review to Lord of the Rings!! That was the most ridiculous thing he ever did.
For me, one of the most impressive aspects of this movie was that I was totally engaged from start to finish even with it being 3 hours long. Not many movies can command a viewers attention for that long unless it's really good.
I don't agree with all of Gene's reviews, or all of Roger's. But, I have to say, Ebert got this one.
Yes, I just watched Casino for the first time - so many ways it's a very good film. Thumbs down? Roger Ebert's reaction was the proper one.
I get where Siskel was coming from, some of the characters were familiar, but history has proven this to be one of the great films. So many memorable scenes.
Their Full Metal Jacket review is literally the same exact thing except their opinions are reversed.
Gene: For you to give thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket I think is a gross mistake.
Roger: I'm putting it into a context where I'm telling people that this is not Kubrick at his best.
Roger: For you to tell people not to see Martin Scorsese's Casino is shocking to me.
Gene: I'm really grading this as a piece of work by Scorsese and this is not his best.
hahaha
Exactly. Ebert being a bit hypocritical.
jrt70 no siskel is just Wrong
Both are great films. Ebert was right about Casino. Siskel was right about Full Metal Jacket. I believe they both have a thumbs down to Reservoir Dogs which I think is ridiculous.
Exactly!
Bravo, exactly my point. Yet everyone has a right to an opinion, that makes life what it is.
Great interpretation of a movie by two of the greatest movie critics ever. RIP to both of them.
It's weird but 95% of the time I always agreed with Ebert.
Yes I would agree with you
I don't know, I like Roger, but his opinion on Clockwork Orange, To Kill a Mockingbird and Usual Suspects will always be a puzzle for me, those are some of my favorites.
Julián Bufarull Yeah, he was wrong on all three of these those, even the Usual Suspects where he was a mildly good point, but truth is he was still off the mark there. They are all great films that he got wrong by a mile.
Right, no new ground was broken. But Casino elevated everything it borrowed from Goodfellas and other movies. That is why I think this is superior to most mob movies.
+link biff Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Agree, Casino is the best movie, the story is was more interesting than GoodFellas which to me that movie is over rated.
Good nutshell, Biff.
@@DjJokerr nowhere near as good as goodfellas
In a way, yes. It followed the same format as Goodfellas, but the real life Chicago-Vegas connection had so many interlocking levels of corruption, betrayal, and greed that it played out more like a Scorsese movie than Henry Hill's real life source material.
Siskel never had the makings of a varsity shinebox
Siskel is out of his mind
Sharon Stone did a fantastic acting job. She deserved an academy for her performance.
No
Ummmm…NO
Hell no.
No
This movie is so damn immersive.I don't know if this ever happened to anyone but it was so immersed that i realized that it would be narrated from top to bottom after 20 mins and by then I was too hooked and was not at all distracted and evntually the narration aspect grew on me.
Like most of Scorsese's movies, "Casino" only improves upon repeated viewings. It is a masterpiece.
Again, being a female, meant the world to me to see Stone in detail. I liked Goodfellas alot but I can watch Casino over and over. I fall in love Ginger and I also think Lester played by the genius James Woods is one I long to see on the screen more. In real life somebody just told (she read the book) that Ginger had Lester's baby hence the pull? But Sam ended up adopting that baby and that is that.
Siskel was out to lunch on this one. "Casino" is a classic.
This is a classic. I can watch this movie any day and at any point in film and appreciate the work and characters. Amazing filmmm
Casino is a masterpiece along with Good Fellas.
Along with Raging Bull.
Casino is one of the best movies ever written, directed, and produced. I’m so grateful that Scorsese made it after Goodfellas. I LOVE THIS MOVIE ♥️💙
Just think Casino and Heat came out the same year 1995. Deniro was great in both
@@irishcole3516 and se7en, braveheart, copycat, apollo 13, crimson tide.. what an awesome year for movies
Casino is so amazing on so many levels I can’t believe siskel
got it so wrong
I watched this movie literally 50 times
They get things wrong often. Ebert didn’t like Brando’s performance in Godfather for example
Yep, I thought gene would give it biggest rating ever.
They’re both right in their reviews. Yes, a lot of what was here we saw already in Goodfellas, the amount of info we learned was fascinating and there was the requisite brutality. Sharon Stone was very good, probably her best film. Pesci was playing pretty much the same guy he played in Goodfellas. IMO they could’ve cut about a half hour out and it would’ve been a much tighter and better film
wrong. it was perfect as is.
I just learned that this movie is a true story, including all the gruesome acts. Just, wow.
I moved to Vegas in 1980. This movie is basically a chronicle of the Stardust and the players who brought it down. Tony Spilatro (Pesci) was still going around killing people or just beating them up. The papers were full of the legal wrangling of casino ownership. The love story? Who knows or cares how accurate that was? It was well told. I recall reading about The Ant being found in a corn field. The brutality of that scene stays with you.
*Spilotro
@@capitanfuturo594 Yeah, thanks.
I was going to film school when Casino came out, and Scorcese was my film professor's favorite director. His take on the film is that it was kind of a failure, but a failure made by someone of Scorcese's stature still had some amazing things in it.
Ebert so on point here. Casino is a masterpiece. You can't grade Casino on a curve.
Take out Sharon Stone and it's a great movie.
I agree, but Siskel's reaction made sense at the time. Casino is a movie that gets better on rewatch and on first viewing it does feel a bit similar to Goodfellas, and a tad too long. Obviously, it's ridiculous to say that those flaws make the movie not worth watching, but I can see where he was coming from.
Well said!
Wow, thumbs down?? I’ve watched this film over and over again. It’s a fascinating and visually stunning film. Just perfect, IMO.
Damn, even Ebert was stunned at Gene’s opinion over the movie
I always liked Casino a little bit more than Goodfellas, despite both portraying the mob in generally the same light. Goodfellas was already somewhat familiar to me having grown up in northern NJ and having to listen to my dad's stories about his cousins and other guys he knew who were involved in those circles. I found the far-removed (from myself at least) glitz & glamour--or at least, the facade thereof--of the mob in Vegas far more interesting than the scrappier, dingier east coast equivalent.
John Smith Sharon Stone was annoying in this and brought it down a bit
Some people don't like Scorsese because he revisits the same themes many times, but for me the proof of his true genius is how he can revisit them always in a creative away
Exactly!
A lot of the themes such as religion and faith/redemption, organised crime and flawed and volatile male characters are spotted throughout his films and often intertwined but with different perspectives and views.
One of the many reasons Scorsese is one of the greatest directors to have ever lived!
I kinda saw Siskel’s point at the time that we’ve seen everything in mob movies but as I watched this movie more times I really enjoyed it and it adds substantially to the genre. The sopranos 4 years later really showed there’s much more to add to the mob story. So history shows Ebert was spot on.
Ebert was always right. He always had a much better sense of what films would be remembered or become influential than Siskel did.
Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boognie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol... siskel never "got" what movies were all about
Sickle seems to be a college teacher who really likes movies well made,
Ebert seems to be a writer who really loves movies, esp well made ones.
@@jameswilliams-of3mvHe gave Boogie Nights a thumbs up he just didn't love it.
Siskel didnt know what he was talking about most of the time
He was telling one of the best movie critics of all time he read the movie wrong......
Zegeebwah
I ABS0LUTLY AGREE!!!!
Gene Siskel Is 0ut 0f His Mind!!!
Casino Is My ABS0LUTE FAV0URITE Movie 0f ALL Time!!!! I've Got It 0n DVD. And I Can Quote It Almost Word For Word!!!!
Top 5 of greatest gangster movies of all time!!
Casino is amazing!!! Absolutely incredible film.
I have no doubt that Siskel would have watched it again, maybe 10 years later, and change his opinion. It has happened plenty with both of them and I can't imagine Casino not being one of them.
Some people coined this film " Good fellas 2 " because of Pesci's character was similar to the one he played in film . This is the world of Vegas before they changed it . I liked the film , Don Rickles cracks me up just looking at him .
Never let me down. Watch it at least 3 times a year, and it always keeps me on the edge of my seat.
Siskel had to realize that this story was fact-based, this is a great film not as good as GoodFellas.
Sharon Stone should of won an Oscar, her performance was one of the best if not the best female performances.
I fully agree! Sharon's acting in this film is among the best female roles in film history, in my opinion she should have won the Oscar for best actress in '96, but this year was super-competed in that category, any of the nominees could win, but I think Sharon's performance was better.
Sorry I disagree, Goodfellas is over rated, movie was good but Casino is great. Casino had better and more interesting story, visually it was stunning to watch and acting was superb. I can't think of 1 bad thing about Casino, the movie is perfect.
This is much better than Goodfellas
At least, unlike Val Kilmer being done wrong for Tombstone, that she was nominated
Disagree wrt to Sharon Stone's performance. I'll admit, she pushed herself, but she DOES NOT have the acting chops to keep up with these (other) actors. She was the WEAK link in an otherwise very good film.
RIP to both these legendary critics !
So, it was too violent for Gene? I'm with Roger on this one. Casino is one of my favorite movies of all-time and yes, I like it even better than Goodfellas. No contest for me.
This is weird for me. I felt like Gene first: I thought it was a trivial movie, almost embarrassing to watch. But it has then become one of my favorite movie... more correctly I love some scenes of this movie.
Daniel Maler
I ABS0LUTLY AGREE With You!!!!!! Casino Is My ABS0LUTE ALL TIME FAVORITE Movie!!!! I Have It 0n DVD And I've Seen It 0VER 30 Times!!!! I Can Almost Quote It Word For Word!!!!!
this fooking guy is gettin all fresh, talking shit about Goodfellas
ooooooou
Not better than Goodfellas but still great.
He never said once in the review that the film was too violent.
Casino was one of the greatest gangster movies of all time!!!! Since the movie has come out there have been COUNTLESS documentaries about what has happened reinforcing what the Scorsese put in the movie! This movie gave an INSIDE LOOK of how the mafia operated a casino, and he gave it a THUMBS DOWN?????? Casino is a TOP 10 mafia movie!!!! HANDS DOWN!!
Thumbs down? Siskel missed the boat again.
Casino: Better than Goodfellas. Yeah, I said it.
It is better. Goodfellas is a good movie but the last 30 or 40 min it really drags. From start to finish Casino is a masterpiece.
Ebert nailed it on this one. This is why i think Casino is better than Goodfellas. It has more depth in terms of the relationshps with the characters.
Though they are both fantastic.
I agree, although if you want to cheat and keep them all on the same level, Scorcese has said that he considers Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino to be an informal trilogy. Mean Streets deals with the street level, Goodfellas on a larger scale; and Casino is the top of the top (the Bosses that ran Vegas with Teamsters Pension funds from Kansas City). I love them all (less so Mean Streets but I still appreciate it), but I really admire the triple protagonist structure and epic complexity of Casino. And just how insane it got out there, and how the charater flaws of each character combined to get the mob permanently kicked out of Vegas. I also read the book by Nicolas Pileggi....amazingly, the true story was even more insane than the movie. Scorsese actually *toned it down* if you can believe it!
Lol that's pretty nuts.
And that's interesting about the idea that those films make a trilogy. I didn't know that. I'm not personally a great fan of Mean Streets as I find most of his films to be much better.
David Brent Yeah I remember reading that in an interview book way back in the day while browsing in the film section of a large bookstore that unfortunately is no longer with us and I also found that interesting. Not a specific trilogy, mind you, but an informal or thematic trilogy.
I too tend not to go back to Mean Streets that often but I appreciate it for what it was. It was made in 1972, his 2nd film...of course he evolved into a top shelf master director by the time Goodfellas came out in 1990. But you can see some of the elements that he'd use is later movies...like the 60's soundtrack, the unpredictable acts of irrational violence...and ingenious camera work (like the POV of Harvey Keitel wasted in the bar). I have only seen Mean Streets maybe twice but I've seen both Goodfellas and Casino at least 20 times each over the years....both indisputable masterpieces!
how can you choose or compare.. Goodfellas is a timeless classic.. Casino is a master piece.. Siskel is so clueless, he didn't like Predator, Boogie Nights, The Crow, Dark City, Strange Days..Siskel was so blind lol.
these guys are so good together, I hope they get back on the show again
LOL.
They'll be back together, once they figure out how to reanimate the corpses.
oh wow I just checked, I am surprised they weren't that old
Patrick Holloway Toooooooo funny!!!!!!Great!!!!!
Ben Fitz classic Ben. you silly boots.
And yet again, Gene Siskel was wrong about an iconic film.
Gene Siskel Is HIGH!!!!! Casino Is THEE BEST Movie EVER!!!!!
Jannet Anderson my top 3
@@Snowowl64 it's not as good as goodfellas but it's definetly a thumbs up it was a great movie.
He's not wrong about the love story tho. Sharon Stone was the weak link in an otherwise very good movie.
@@arthurbishop3173 Nonsense. Stone was the standout. Everybody else is playing characters they've already played before. Her meltdown is the highlight of the film.
When I first saw Casino I was on Siskel side.... but I have to admit I was drawn to see the movie again and again.
southsidesman As I said, there is a mysterious attraction towards this movie. It grabbed me after the initial thought that this was below Scrosese`s level.... so in the end , I liked it.
Sharon Stone in her best role of her career. Should’ve won an Oscar
“I had never seen it in this way” is spot on. There are elements that are very similar to GoodFellas, but in context gives a very different experience
Casino was one of the greatest gangster movies of ALL TIME!!!
Ebert gets it right.
My favorite parts of Casino are subtitled "Back Home."
Casino is A American Classic and both of these men are as well. RIP to both of them..
Hands down my favorite movie of all time. Ebert nailed it.
When it comes to movie reviewers, Gene Siskel was not always a "goodfella." Roger Ebert was. RIP, guys.
SmilingSynic - maybe now they are reviewing & criticizing films in heaven
Casino was good but I like Goodfellas much better.
Chicago Sports For Life : goodfellas and ccasino nicely compliment each other
blunt guy I think Casino isn’t that far off from Goodfellas, very underrated film that deserves to be re-evaluated.
Siskel is so dead-on correct in his assessment. I miss this man. I miss Ebert.
I like that Ebert pointed out the astounding amount of information given in the film.
Siskel is out of his mind on this one. Casino is a great movie.
It's insane the amount of misses Siskel had in this shows run.
It’s his own opinion. He didn’t agree with the majority on principle which is why he was such a popular critic
@lyndon chastain So he's popular because he's a contrarian? His job was to screen films and give his opinion to the masses. If the masses disagreed with his opinion, how effective was he at his job?
@@LT4Nova 😁 His job was to give objective views of films, not to tell you what you want to hear, so he was very good at his job. McDonalds isn't cordon bleu in quality just because "the masses" choose to feed themselves there.
@ImCallingJapan If by "masses" you are saying, the vast majority of trained culinary experts...ok. His job was to screen films and recommend them to the masses. The masses disagreed with many of his choices, and with that said, how good was he at his job? Conversely, Ebert nailed a bunch, so I take it he's no better. They're both just as good? Many of the films he missed on went on to both financial and critical acclaim. Does McDonlads menu get critically acclaimed awards?
@@LT4Nova IMO, what I said was self-explanatory. Nobody is saying you can't enjoy a movie, but Siskel gave his honest opinion based on a career of film analysis. If you disagree, that's your problem.
Loved it, going to Vegas july 9th, celebrating 20th anniversary ❤.. can't wait!!
You have to look at it as a Trilogy... Mean Streets is about "The Kids"... Goodfellas is "The Kids have grown up"... And Casino is "The Grown Ups have matured"... For me this is the greatest cinematic trilogy of the Western World...
I think Gene needed to rewatch this movie again after some time and hopefully give it a thumbs up it deserves.
Just because it wasn't better than Goodfellas, doesn't mean it's a bad movie
great film. siskel should be beaten with a shine box
ABS0LUTLY!!!!!!!!!
Or stabbed in the neck with a pen
Gets better with age
or baseball bats in a cornfield
Go get your shinebox
At the time Casino seemed like Siskel says I have seen this before. Ebert agreed to a point, but was impressed by the filmmaking as was Siskel. It is now twenty plus years and Casino holds up very well. The acting is magnificent, the storytelling is riveting and the film work is spectacular.
The heart of Casino is the music. About 90% of the movie is quality music flowing from one song to next and a brilliant backdrop to the rhythm of the story.
Best movie ever and he gave it a thumbs down😂😂😂😂😂
Godfather II is the best movie ever in my opinion but Casino is probably my favorite.
Hmmm this dispute is very VERY similar to that of when they reviewed Full Metal Jacket. Gene was saying that it was similar to Platoon but from a different yet effective point of view and gave it thumbs up. And Roger gave it thumbs down for being just the same story about Vietnam, BUT HERE he says Casino is a familiar story but told a different way. HA! Quite the inconsistency. Still a fan though RIP both of them
Gosh I’m almost in tears at the quality and collegiality of their debate
Casino is one of the ALL TIME BEST movies ever created. Siskel & Ebert were totally out to lunch.
How is Roger out to lunch? He literally castrates Gene for voting thumbs down.
He did not like the story, but this was based on real people, it actually happened.
WHEN A movie claims it is telling the truth..you can bet it is maybe 10% accurate...
That necessarily make it good though. There are a lot of bad movies based on true events. You need to find the right angle from which to show the facts of the story.
I loved Casino. I think, whether it was true or not, it is fantastic story and a fantastic movie. But the general proposition that the plot of a movie based on a true story is immune to criticism doesn't really hold up.
I still liked goodfellas a lot but I enjoyed casino a lot more
Goodfellas is an 8, 8.5/10 for me where as Casino is a 10/10
Jesus christ, I miss these guys. They were the absolute best!
No mention of Sharon Stone's performance, perhaps the best in her career. That alone is worth the watch.
I sort of agree with Siskel on this one. Having said that, if Goodfellas had not have been made then Casino would be considered a classic. Marty is a victim of his own standards.
Mick G Ebert was totally right on this one, you need to watch it again. I watched it back in 2018 and it’s great, maybe could’ve been a little shorter, but I didn’t mind Sharon Stone and thought her performance was fine, everything else is on par with Goodfellas though. It’s not his best movie, but again besides Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Taxi, what is?
I honestly liked this movie much more than Goodfellas.
92Beyo I wouldn’t say I liked more, but I did really enjoy it and I personally believe it’s closer to Goodfellas than most would like to think.
Casino has stood the test of time, is as re-watchable and interesting as any of Marty’s movies.
The days when adults could vehemently yet respectfully disagree with each other.
Bravo to 2 of the BEST in the industry; Two Thumbs Up! 👍👍
I love how in this review, I completely disagree with Siskel (I love Casino), but on the Fullmetal Jacket I completely disagree with Ebert. Just goes to show, there is no critic you can completely match in terms of taste
Some things I agre with Siskel and some with Ebert. I do think Scorsese played it safe in the film and Pesci and Deniro gave performances similar to before. However I think the relationship between Deniro and Stone is the best thing in the movie.
Casino didn't hold up as well as Goodfellas. It's a good but not great film.
Cosplay Time Capsule I think Casino is great, deserves to be reassessed after all these years, better than overrated Braveheart that came out the same year.
Guys mental. One of the best movies ever.
This movie had some of the most impressive editing I'd ever seen