I have never set foot in a Casino, and for good reason: I am hardwired to enjoy my time at one, and thus lose all my money. I like card games (even if admittedly I don’t know how to play Poker), I like games with risk, and the general aesthetics of most casinos are appealing to me. I like bright lights and loud noises, like a reverse golden-retreiver. But still I’ve avoided casinos and all other forms of gambling with real money (such as gacha games) as much as I can, because while they can potentially be fun in healthy quantities, there is no regulation in the world that makes the risk worth it.
In order to satisfy my gambling based urges, I watched the 1995 Martin Scorsese film Casino. It’s pretty darn good, which is to be expected. Scorsese has a stellar reputation, especially among cinephiles (not a fan of that name by the way), something I am slowly becoming. The only Scorsese I had seen before this was Killers of the Flower Moon, which I saw in theaters when it was released in 2023. This led to some obvious questions from some people. Why hadn’t I seen The Wolf of Wall Street, or Taxi Driver, or Goodfellas. The latter film was repeatedly brought up to me as a must-see. How dare I watch Casino before it! And so I did the only thing I could possibly do: watch every Scorsese crime film… Goodfellas last. (Broad spoilers ahead).
Robert De Niro in Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino, The Irishman, and Killers of the Flower Moon
(Or: Put My Head in a Vice)
In retrospect, I agree that starting with Casino is an insane choice. Stylistically it is the most similar to Goodfellas, which released only five years earlier. While it is a weaker version of that film, it’s still quite good in its own right. The film follows the exploits of two mobsters (Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci) who work in Las Vegas casinos, skimming cash and stealing from pawn shops. De Niro then soon falls in love with a character who’s prior job I cannot remember and I will not bother to look up (played by Sharon Stone). Then… the movie happens! You don’t need me to explain it to you.
The movie and its many sets or locations look great, it’s well directed, well acted, yadda yadda yadda. The same applies to pretty much all of Scorsese’s films, so unless there is something particularly note-worthy, don’t expect these aspects of the films to be brought up moving forward.
I think what keeps Casino engaging is its combination of an active plot (the rise and fall of De Niro and Pesci’s own mini-crime empire combined with Stone’s drug problems) and scenes of everyday crime or shenanigans occurring. As I’ll discuss later, some of Scorsese’s other films struggle with this. The movie is also very well paced—my original letterboxd review says “When I was watching this I thought "wow, this film is three hours long but it feels so much shorter!" Then I paused it and learned I was only halfway through.
Casino is fun! Is it a little lame that De Niro escapes any consequences? I suppose, but it’s adapted from a real story where the same occurred. I wish Stone was in it more / we got more of her perspective: I remember her character being the most compelling in the movie (and she’s certainly more interesting than her Goodfellas equivalent). Still, it’s a solid film. 8/10
(Or: Boston Cream, more like… m-more like Boston Cream)
Out of all of the films I watched for this article, The Departed (2006) contained the silliest premise: there’s a cop pretending to be in the mob (Leonardo DiCaprio) and a cop who is secretly part of said mob (Matt Damon). Hijinks ensue! This is a fun one—not to say it isn’t full of death and deplorable acts. Just. Y'know. Fun plot! Jack Nicholson is in it! Who’s going to complain about that?
Honestly I don’t have much to say about this one. It goes pretty much how you’d expect sans the ending, and I’m actively struggling to remember a lot of it. I think DiCaprio has an underbaked romance with Damon’s partner, but I might be combining two characters (all of these films, with one possible exception, are very male centric). The Departed is a fun but simple time. Definitely worth a watch, but nothing I’m rushing anyone to see. 8/10 (this reflects my original letterboxd ranking, I’d probably move it down to a 7 today).
Leonardo DiCaprio in Gangs of New York, The Departed, and Killers of the Flower Moon
(Or: Oops, All Vibes!)
Mean Streets (1973) is the first Scorsese crime film, and one of his first films overall. And boy can you tell! The film follows Harvey Keitel and De Niro (I assumed he was the lead in this, I was wrong), a criminal and criminal-but-not-as-good as they go around town, drinking at bars and criming it up. Over the events of the film, Keitel gets into a relationship with De Niro’s cousin (Amy Robinson), and De Niro’s behavior worsens, leading to a dispute between the three that ends with a minor car crash. Roll credits.
That’s really all the central plot in this film amounts to. It mostly comprised of unrelated events, conversations, and crimes, all of which are entertaining but none of which feel particularly important (and none of which make it into the wikipedia plot summary). It’s the type of film that could go on forever, not because it's engrossing and entertaining but because it meanders endlessly in a way that's hard to look away from but hard to remember.
You can tell how this movie became Goodfellas, especially with its constant musical cues and general tone, but unfortunately that’s all it really is: proto-Goodfellas. 7/10
(Or: The Bad One)
I don’t like Gangs of New York (2002). It feels like it’s made by a different crew and director than the rest of Scorsese’s lineup. The film follows DiCaprio working in a gang under Daniel Day-Lewis (who also murdered his father in a shitty LARP battle). While DiCaprio is filled with a vengeance to kill Day-Lewis, he still views him somewhat positively, being molded under him. Then in the last hour the film decides it’s actually about the NYC draft riots. Cameron Diaz is also there, playing a love interest for Leo that doesn’t do anything of note. Her lack of screentime and development really hurts the film, as she could have been the main thread bridging the film's two disjointed halves.
Visually, the movie has not aged well: the whole thing looks manufactured rather than lived in. The costumes are especially egregious in this category. While Day-Lewis gives a fantastic performance as to be expected, DiCaprio is shockingly mediocre in this. I feel as though he was a bit too young to play this role—espeically since he is a fairly believable 16-19 year old in Catch Me If You Can (also released in 2002).
This is also the Scorsese film that felt the longest, and frankly I couldn’t wait for it to be over, even though the next two films are literally the longest ones I’ve ever seen at almost three and a half hours (this is just over two and a half). I did not enjoy Gangs of New York, but the plot was engaging enough for me to never consider turning it off… for that long. It isn’t bad, just boring (and not in a fun way like Means Streets). 5/10
Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, Casino, and The Irishman
(Or: Wow, I Can’t Believe This Stole My Bit of Having Two Titles)
The Irishman or I Heard You Paint Houses (2019) feels like the natural end point of Scorsese’s filmography. The film is a semi-accurate depiction of the life of real mobsters Frank Sheeran and Russell Bufalino (De Niro and Pesci), their various criminal activities, and their rise and fall within the teamsters union, led by Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). A lot of Scorsese’s other films, particularly Mean Streets, Casino, and Goodfellas, often feel like they’re glorifying violence and glamorizing the success it brings. The Irishman instead has a much more realistic depiction of a mobster lifestyle: it’s lonely, it’s sad, it’s hard, and no one is really enjoying themselves.
Throughout the events of the film, I never really got a read on why De Niro wanted to be a criminal. It never does him any good: in the end he’s all alone, paranoid, and no one even remembers him or his union (unions are cool kids, don’t let their power fade and all that). And yet, he still does the horrible things he does, all while Pacino tries (and fails) to regain control over the teamsters. It’s definitely a slow burn, but it is gripping the entire time. Much like The Departed, I don’t have that much to say about this film, but I strongly recommend it, especially after watching all the others. 8/10
(Or: The Best One)
Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) is incredible. Jaw-droppingly good. Three and a half hours of De Niro, DiCaprio, and Lily Gladstone acting their asses off while recounting a truly sickening event: the Osage Murders. In the film, De Niro, a respected man in the Osage Nation, schemes with his nephew (DiCaprio) to inherit the headrights to the vast amounts of oil on the reservation that only Osage people have by default. To do this, DiCaprio marries a full-blooded Osage woman (Gladstone) before killing the rest of her remaining family and actively impeding her by diluting her insulin for her diabetes.
It’s a very depressing film. DiCaprio plays a truly pathetic character: one who genuinely loves his wife, but is too scared of his uncle and (more importantly) too money hungry to stop himself from committing these crimes. Gladstone gives a great performance as well, though I wish the film spent more time (yes really) on her perspective. She’s the emotional core of the movie, the one you’re rooting for the entire time while wallowing in grief over what’s happening to the Osage.
The ending of the film is incredible and a very succinct way to summarize the film. The film is revealed to be an audio drama (that Scorsese himself is in, don’t think about that too hard) dramatizing the plot. The worst part about the murders is that they’re entertainment, the old-timey equivalent of a true-crime podcast. It’s a Steven Spielberg-The Color Purple type problem: the story is handled very well, but probably would have been even better from a non-white / an osage perspective. But for what it is it is still excellent. 9/10
(Or: Oim Crime Enry Now)
It’s fucking Goodfellas (1990) what do you want me to say. It’s really fucking good. 9/10. Moving on
Oh, you want more? Fair enough. Goodfellas follows the criminal antics of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta of Cocaine Bear fame), DiNiro, and Pesci. It has an actual on-going plot (which you cannot say about Mean Streets) but it covers a lot of ground. The fact that Hill goes to jail and it's a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of the film just goes to show how well it's paced: even better than Casino.
That’s right, it is, in fact, better than Casino. Terrifying. To quote the buddy I watched this with, it is not very subtle. Hill wants to be a criminal for the perceived status and luxury, and when it fucks his entire life up but he doesn’t die he doesn’t feel greatful, he feels upset. DeNiro is constantly paranoid, Pesci dies, etc. It glamorizes, then shows the reality of mob life. In that way it performs a similar role to The Irishman, but in a way that is more entertaining and with more memorable characters. It’s one weakness is that Liotta’s love interest, played by Lorraine Bracco, gets less screentime as the film goes on, even though her presence (or lack thereof) remains important. This is a relatively minor nitpick however (which is to say I cannot think of alternative ways to handle her character. Oops).
It’s called Goodfellas, but really it’s great, fellas. 9/10. Applaud me.
(Or: Was It All Worth It? Yes, Duh)
Watching all of these was fun! Would I recommend you, dear viewer, do the same? Hell no, skip Gangs of New York and Mean Streets. Still, I had a great time watching all of these films. A better blogger would probably end with some conclusion about all the films and their grander message or at least thematic connections. Not me. I already covered what I wanted to say.
I’ll probably do another movie marathon in the future, so if you have any recommendations I’d love to hear em! DM me on Bluesky or Discord.