ritera1 I've always been fascinated at the hypocrisy of the conservative clan to be religious and proper and then do all the things they do in protecting themselves; making money unethically and ultimately putting on the backs of the poor and regular Joe. I've always wanted a time-line between the two worlds. A connection. How they rationalize it all. (I guess it's not that uncommon throughout history.) This movie doesn't answer those questions. It depict them in vivid detail. The blind devotion to God and the blind devotion to the dollar as they throw up countless rationalizations.Maybe it's a warning. This is what it looks like when you think you're a good guy but you're really a bad guy. This is what it looks like when you're a liar and your life is a lie.I would have liked to have screened this with Republican members of Congress and the House. They would have squirmed more than a bucket o' worms. And the denouncements and rationalizations would have been fun. (Be clear. I'm speaking about Republicans. They are the bad guys.) As for the movie I thought it was kind of bland. By the numbers. Kevin Spacey came off as average and he's usually much better.

daddyofduke 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.

nickmesafilms Kevin Spacey portrays the real tale of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was involved in a massive corruption scandal that included fraud, conspiracy, and tax evasion. The late director George Hickenlooper has brought a movie that contains everything you expect to see, and he helps bring a good vision of Jack's life. Kevin Spacey is just phenomenal as Jack Abramoff, with his quirky dialouge to his charming satisfaction, Spacey is the perfect actor to play this role for many reasons. Kelly Preston is just wonderful as Spacey's wife, even though she had a limited number of scenes in the movie, she blows away in the scenes that she is in. Jon Lovitz and Barry Pepper rounds up the cast, and they both did great performances in this movie. Now although the plot is historically incorrect at times, it's really interesting to watch on screen. George Hickenlooper provides a unique directing duty, and he really improves. But once again, it's Kevin Spacey that steals the whole movie. He's classy, he's charming, he's funny, and he always deliver perfect powerful performances. A brilliant script, an incredible cast, and a perfect director is all that's needed to make "Casino Jack" a great movie. Although it's incorrect and too straight enough, "Casino Jack" delivers just enough perfection. "Casino Jack", in my review, "a phenomenal perfection of a movie, Spacey at his finest".

Gin-ster Informative, stacks up reasonably well against published facts, and it is absorbing as a story. Some of the casting is "apt," while some is not exactly on-target (Norquist in particular, and Ambramoff too - Greg Kinnear would've been more on-target as far as appearance) but this is not the main problem as Spacey's acting is, as usual, excellent. I can't put my finger on it, but there is something cartoonish about the portrayals that got in the way of my saying it's an "excellent" film even though I have no doubt the people portrayed are, in real life, the sleazebags that they are shown to be. There is some attempt at nuance as we are asked to consider the possibility that Jack Abramoff is a conflicted figure as he believes in family, faith and country and the idea that the Bush (and right wing) are best for America, but it is not clear how he can also readily embrace basic criminal acts. Another credibility-stretching aspect was his (and Scanlon's) foolishness with money. They are shown to be "sharp cookies" in business dealings on the one hand yet unable to control their wish to spend money they don't yet have on more and more extravagant possessions. So this doesn't add up either. Again, I am not denying that these things may well have taken place but they are not rendered "credible" in the film and instead the key characters (Abramoff, Scanlon) come across as irrational above all.