Lack of good storyline.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

I viewed Casino Jack recently. The story centers around Jack Abramoff who is a registered lobbyist. It is kind of an odd movie subject. Jack rises and then falls in a dramatic fashion even though the true story is pretty dull. Lets look at the different areas of this film. After reviewing the specifics I want to talk about Hollywood and politics.The acting: Kevin Spacey was the only reason this film is watchable. He delivers a solid smooth performance. Barry Pepper is becoming a first rate supporting actor. Spencer Garrett was strong as Tom Delay. Kelly Preston is a weak link. Not sure how she got this role ( I have an idea though). Her looks are gone and her mediocre acting ability is getting even worse. Poor choice. The rest of the cast is OK. GRADE B-.The story/screenplay: This film was written by Norman Snider. This is as bad as it gets. He gets most of it wrong. Making some stuff up out of the blue. He tries to tie the life long criminal activities and ultimate death of the SunCruz owner to Jack with no proof or even allegations. This was the only interesting part of the film and its mostly false at least in tying it to Abramoff. The dialog is more of "evil Rupublican" theme than anything. Of note, the director's brother is a Democratic Governor in Colorado. We make Tom Delay a focal point here. He had some ethics issues but none seemed linked to Jack. As time as gone on Delay has actually been vindicated in most common sense circles. The real story of Abramoff is that he got greedy at the end with shaking down Indian tribes and trying to get into the offshore casino business. One point the movie harps on is that the Bush administration didn't help Jack when it went bad. Well doesn't that say something for integrity that the Bush administration would go after this guy in the first place? If Abramoff could be so damaging to the Republicans, wouldn't they have left him alone? If this would have been a factual story it would have been quote boring and complicated. GRADE DThe directing and technical aspects: The director was George Hickenlooper. He is awful. This film had a LMN feel to it. It seemed to have a decent budget but showed like a TV movie. This film was disjointed and not smooth. It seemed as the actors had very little to work with here. Again, Hollywood seems more interested in showing how bad the Republicans are than making a decent film that sticks to the facts. GRADE: DOverall film GRADE: C- (only because of Spacey)Now my big picture thoughts. Hollywood recently seems to be heavily invested in making mainstream films depicting the right as bad, evil, stupid, criminal, etc.. The logic seems to be lets use legitimate actors and films to twist facts and make some odd leftie political statements. Films such as this one, Too Big to Fail, Inside Job, No end in sight, Recount, etcc.. There seems to be a shift from the outright kooky Michael Moore stuff to a more "normal" looking films to further the nutty left look at things. I believe everyone one of these films has been a financial flop. Hollywood isn't good at listening to their customers. I suspect we will see more films like this depicting the right as evil and left as saintly.This got me to thinking. We must have had 10 medium to big budget films ripping President Bush over the last 10 years. Most downright silly and clearly financial losers. But.. what about some "leftie" films that could/should be made? Here is a list of films we could make showing the left in not so flattering terms. Most would be pretty entertaining as well. Here goes:1) "House of male Congessional review" Starring Rep. Barney Frank. Remember he and his partner ran a male prostitution ring out of their town home. You cant even make this up!!!2) "I am not a drunk, no matter how many girls I kill" starring Sen. Ted Kennedy. This fool actually killed an innocent girl either by just being drunk or something more sinister. Oyy.3) "Governor and mama need a new pair of shoes" Starring Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. This character actually tried to sell Obama's Senate seat!! This is gold!!4) "I invented the Internet and baseball" Starring Vice President Al Gore. How come this fruit loop doesn't have more media dinging him? He is a liar and a profiteer. He has made more money on the global warming scam than there are carbon foot prints in Europe!I think you get my points. While my suggestions may seem silly they are true and can be documented. Wouldn't a film on Blago be way more entertaining than Jack Abramoff?? I think it would. What about Barney Frank? This idiot not only broke the law with his house of ill repute, but it was his sponsored legislation that really enabled the housing collapse (forcing banks to give low income, no background check loans, Too Big to Fail must have missed this). Funny we never have seen Hollywood disparage any of these people.While clearly few if any Americans actually look to Hollywood for political guidance they sure seem to want to give it to us. I mean do you want to be told how to vote or think by most Hollywood types? Of course not. Many of these people have no education, never had a real job, are surrounded by butt kissers. (Did you ever see that video of Matt Damon prattling on about dinosaurs and voting for Obama?? It was quite enlightening. Lets just say you wouldn't hire Matt to work at the local Wal-Mart). Gimme a break. Hollywood, stick to entertaining us. You really should be better at it.

Do political systems corrupt their participants or do the participants corrupt the systems? Casino Jack, while not resolving this issue, certainly does a commendable job of exploring it.This excellent film examines the Jack Abramoff scandal, this political era's answer to Watergate. Abramoff, as you know, extorted clients, bribed congressional representatives, and lied to just about everyone, including loved ones. The movie uses real names, actual incidents, genuine dialogue, and an apparently liberal dose of cinematic license to capture the abject greed of Abramoff and his criminal cohort, Michael Scanlon. The scandal ultimately resulted in House Majority Leader, Tom De Lay, Congressman Robert Ney, and Abramoff falling from grace and into criminal courts. Scanlon, according to the film, has copped a deal that has at least delayed his imprisonment and probably mitigated its length.Kevin Spacey is effective in portraying Abramoff's seemingly devout Judaism juxtaposed against his obsessive greed. Barry Pepper's intense portrayal of Michael Scanlon highlights in compelling fashion the depths to which some people will go to accommodate their insatiable lust for money. On the other hand, Jon Lovitz' performance seems to reflect an indecision oh his part whether to play the role of a mob linked businessman either straight or comical, and as a result he essentially does neither.De Ley, played by Spencer Garrett, whose performance as one of John Dillinger's fellow robbers in Public Enemies was so effective, is exposed as cynically and unrepentantly corrupt. In real life De Ley was convicted of corruption and sentenced to several years in prison. Ditto for Mr. Ney. And even more ditto for Abramoff.The film is taken from the vantage point that the viewer is watching the events as they unfold, as opposed to other political scandal films such as All The President's Men. That movie showed us Watergate through the eyes of reporters. I think you know their names.What is so galling is the fact that all of the key players in the Abramoff scandal were heartlessly immune to what was in the public's best interest. This film makes that fact clearly and convincingly. Spacey's Abramoff is so cunning and cynical that he doesn't see the disconnect in using the millions of dollars that he extorted from his Indian tribe clients to donate to charity. Scanlon doesn't pay back his student loans, but he can afford to purchase a luxury home in Dubai.You can't have a system without people. And let's face it, in any system there will be corrupt people. Casino Jack show us just how corrupt some of those people can be.

I must admit I knew nothing about Jack Abramoff before seeing this film. I'm guessing his story caused quite a scandal in the corridors of power in Washington DC at the time. I have never taken much of an interest in American politics, it seems very complicated to me and this film hasn't really changed my view. It's opened my eyes somewhat, but it only goes to show just how cutthroat a business modern politics is! I will give you my thoughts on this one after a very brief summary.This film tells the very recent story of Jack Abramoff and his associate, Michael Scanlon. They were lobbyists under the Bush administration. Their job was to find companies or organisations that wanted or needed changes in legislation. They would then, for a substantial fee, approach the various politicians they needed to get the job done. The wheels were often greased with large donations to re-election campaigns or similar. All of what I've said so far is, I believe, perfectly legal. The film tells us about their dealings with various Native American tribes and how they defrauded them out of large amounts of money in order to secure gambling rights. There is more to tell, but I'd better leave it there or the Spoiler Police will be charging me with misconduct.Although I found the film a little hard to follow I did enjoy the performances or both Kevin Spacey as Jack Abramoff and Barry Pepper as Michael Scanlon. As I've already said, US politics is not a beast I usually confront and I'd like to say that this film convinced me otherwise, but sadly it didn't. I found most of the characters quite despicable (no real surprise there though) and the way they go about their business quite deplorable. The film itself is pretty well made and the plot does make sense after a while, after several of the threads begin to pull together. I can't exactly say it had me gripped, but it was quite well made and Kevin Spacey did a pretty good job in the leading role. Sadly it's not one I'd recommend unless you're really into American politics, or really have to see all of Kevin Spacey's films.My Score: 5.4/10.IMDb Score: 6.3/10 (based on 6,457 votes at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes Score: 36/100 (based on 90 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Kevin Spacey is truly an actor to adore. The Two-Time Academy-Award Winner has proved his talent time and again. In 'Casino Jack', he gets even better and delivers a superb performance. 'Casino Jack' is based on Jack Abramoff. Abramoff, is one of the most notorious lobbyist's ever. 'Casino Jack', however focuses, on the time when Abramoff & his protégé went down hard...as their schemes to peddle influence lead to corruption and a brutal murder. Director George Hickenlooper does a good job, while Norman Snider's writing is flawed. The writing in the first hour is spot-on, but in the second hour, it falters. Even the culmination for that matter, doesn't leave the desired impact. Acting wise, as told, Spacey owns the film. He plays Abramoff superbly. He truly is an Icon! Barry Pepper is Excellent. On the whole, 'Casino Jack' can be viewed once, for it's lead star's performance. Must for Spacey Fans!