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……..

+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.

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.

You nailed it.

Replying to a comment from ten years ago seems weird but yea you nailed that. Its the peak of the mountain for the mob and this movie does a great of example of showing despite the cleverness of the mob and the tactics they used they had essentially created something they could never sustain because of how they started it. Nicky couldn't kick enough asses to keep the riff raff out, ace couldn't bend the rules in their favor enough, the bosses couldn't exert control over the massive empire, and ginger was a perfect example of being consumed by all of it.

Yes. Yes. Yes to all your points.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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'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.

Just watch Casino first, then Goodfellas. No problem.

Fucken eh!

Nah

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

No

Ummmm…NO

Hell no.

No

+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.

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

Along with Raging Bull.

wrong. it was perfect as is.

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.

*Spilotro

@@capitanfuturo594 Yeah, thanks.

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!

John Smith Sharon Stone was annoying in this and brought it down a bit

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

SmilingSynic - maybe now they are reviewing & criticizing films in heaven

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.

Godfather II is the best movie ever in my opinion but Casino is probably my favorite.

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.

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?

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.

"Casino", aka "The Goodfellas Move to Las Vegas."