Critics’ reviews

Casino (1995)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 80: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Casino

80
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Casino, with praise centred on Scorsese’s direction, the detail of the casino operations and the film’s account of Mafia power in Las Vegas. The reviews admire its period atmosphere and visual style, though the performances receive just as much attention. De Niro and Pesci draw strong notices, while Sharon Stone is repeatedly singled out for bringing emotional depth to the film. For its admirers, the detailed narration helps make a complicated criminal enterprise absorbing.

The disagreement concerns whether that technique sustains the personal drama. Reservations cluster around length, heavy voice-over and repetition, with a sizeable gap between the strongest praise and the dissent. The Los Angeles Times admires the opening account of casino operations but finds the ensuing drama exhausting and excessively violent. Time Out goes further, arguing that flashy technique sidelines the characters and makes the film feel like a tired return to GoodFellas.

RogerEbert.com
22 November 1995 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

Scorsese's film excels at capturing the Mafia's operations in Las Vegas through detailed narration and period specifics. The director gets the feel and mood of the city exactly right, with strong performances from De Niro, Pesci, and especially Stone.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
17 November 1995 · Duane Byrge
90*

The critic declares Casino a big winner commercially and aesthetically, comparing it favorably to GoodFellas and praising its direction, visuals, and cast. Sharon Stone's sensational performance is highlighted as the standout element.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

The critic calls Casino a hugely underrated and shocking tale of power, money and depravity, essentially about the Mafia adrift in the 1970s without its usual codes. It praises absorbing realism, intriguing subplots and expertly drawn characters, singling out Sharon Stone as an absolute revelation in her demanding role.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 November 1995 · Janet Maslin
80*

Scorsese delivers a dazzlingly stylish portrait of Las Vegas as a surreal, money-obsessed mirage with blistering bitterness and peacock extravagance. The film features spectacular performances, particularly from Sharon Stone, and fits perfectly into the director's canon of histrionic mob stories.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
22 November 1995 · Kenneth Turan
50*

Scorsese proves himself a master of imagery but struggles to make his personal obsessions accessible, resulting in an exhausting and claustrophobic film. The movie shines in its opening cinematic sequences detailing casino operations but loses momentum in repetitive personal drama and excessive violence.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Phil Thomas

The critic finds Casino a powerful, disturbing and fascinating examination of a specific time and place, and of the nature of deals we make. They single out the lead performances of De Niro, Stone and Pesci for particular praise while noting the film's length and voiceover elements.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA

The critic finds Scorsese's film technically impressive with an inherently fascinating subject in the evolution of Las Vegas and its mobsters, but faults the approach for making virtuosity an end in itself. Story and characters are pushed into the background by flashy technique and heavy voice-over, resulting in a dull Scorsese movie that feels like a tired rerun of GoodFellas.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
11 July 2005 · Nick Jones
80*

The film dazzles and seduces through its epic storytelling of the rise and fall of a Las Vegas casino empire run by the mob. Sharon Stone delivers the standout performance as the volatile Ginger, bringing emotional depth to the male-dominated gangster tale.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate