Casino

I am a firm believer in the "three viewings test." By this I mean that the first three times you see a good movie, it should only get better-- performances should hold up, subtleties should become more clear and (although you may get sick of watching it!) you should feel that you have a grip on the director's overall concept and reach a stage where you forget who the actors are and become immersed in the story. Basically, you should like it as much as you did the first time, and have much more respect for it as a work.

Unfortunately, this was not my experience with Martin Scorsese's latest, CASINO. The first time I saw it, I was impressed by its complexity and by the credit it gave the audience: there are a zillion characters, and it's important to remember as many of them as you can, since they're constantly referred to in voice-overs. This is no simple "good guy-bad guy" flick, with a clear beginning, middle, and obvious conclusion. (Actually, the ending IS obvious, because it is told to us by Robert DeNiro's character in the very first voice-over, but still, I was curious as to HOW and WHY it happened.) However, by my third viewing, CASINO seemed very uneven--part soap opera, part documentary, with the length of an epic, but none of the power.

As you probably have heard by now, CASINO is the story of the last days of the mob's rule in Las Vegas. It is set in the seventies, and it's worth seeing just for the costumes and scenery. Robert DeNiro plays Sam "Ace" Rothstein, a casino manager whose main job is to keep tons of money flowing through the casino so that when the mob guy comes in to skim (basically walking out with a whole suitcase of $100 bills every month), no one notices or cares. The guys back home also send Nicky (played revoltingly well by the foul-mouthed Joe Pesci) down to "protect" Sam. If "protect" means doin' Sam's wife...then he does a great job. Then there's Ginger (played to a tee by Sharon Stone), a famous Vegas hustler who agrees to marry Sam, but who really still loves a true sleaze-bag (James Woods).

So those are the basic characters, and the basic plot is that they all screw each other over, most of them beat the shit out of each other, and most of them die in a pool of blood. Sounds a lot like GOODFELLAS, huh? Well it is and it isn't. After an early viewing, fellow GoF reviewer Andrea said that it had absolutely no "soul." That was the word she used, weeks ago, and that is the same complaint I've read in many of the reviews that came out this week. I have to jump on the bandwagon and agree--I mean, three hours is certainly enough time to DEVELOP a character and besides, this film shoot was SIX MONTHS LONG! So why does DeNiro have the presence of a house plant? By my third viewing, I must say that I was downright offended by his lack of a performance.

I never thought I'd say this but...Sharon Stone carries this movie. Her character, Ginger, goes from a somewhat-in-control hustler to a desperate druggie and alcoholic, willing to "please" Nicky (Joe Pesci--GROSS!) if he will be her new "sponsor," and the transformation is great to watch. Part of it is her costumes and make-up, but a lot of it is her performance.