Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:33:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Goodfellas vs Casino

Started by biggytitbo, March 17, 2010, 09:53:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

biggytitbo

I've watched both these great films in the last few days and I have decided that I prefer Casino as a film. Bafflingly, it is an underrated film and often disparaged for been nothing more than a rehash of Goodfellas, what with it having the same writer, director and lead actors. This is wrong.

Goodfellas is a fantastic, lean and focused film, but Casino is better. Its a sprawling epic, looking at a bigger story with a bigger canvas. It's most common criticism is that De Niro and Pesci are just playing the same characters.

This couldn't be more wrong. Casinos greatest strength is that Pesci and particularly De Niro play far richer and more complex characters in Casino then they do in Goodfellas. I'm of the opinion that De Niro in Goodfellas is underused and underdeveloped. Not so in Casino, he is the heart of the film and his character, an obsessive compulsive gambler with an almost autistic attention to detail is compelling and fascinating. De Niro has rarely given a better performance that he does here but it is criminally overlooked. Even Pesci, who on the face of it appears to be playing a near identical psychopath to Tommy in Goodfellas, actually plays a far more complicated character in Casino. Yes he's a still a psycho, but he's one with a sensitive and loving side, in particular been a fantastic dad to his son and a character with some kind of moral boundaries. Casino also benefits from having a genuinely great female character in Sharon Stone's career best performance as De Niro's alcoholic grifter wife.

Most of all, Casino's great strength over Goodfellas is its pacing. Its a longer film, more sprawling and far reaching. But the way it builds up its story is better. Goodfellas starts with a bang but the last 20 minutes tail off and drag a bit. Casino starts off slowly but gradually ramps up the tension and stakes so the last 20 minutes is by far the most compulsive and gripping of the entire film.

Casino, like Goodfellas is also a truly beautiful film cinematically. It actually betters the former in its stylistic flourishes, especially the extreme close ups and fetishistic slow motion of the casino shots.

One of Scorcese's best, but a film that is unfairly neglected in his canon, and wrongly compared unfavourably to the more famous Goodfellas.

Vitalstatistix

I've always preferred Casino meself. I thought I was in a tiny minority with that, but in recent times there seems to have been a bit of a reappraisal, although Goodfellas still has the classic status.

I think you've nailed its strengths there. De Niro's character is much more interesting, it doesn't tail off and Stone is superb. I love the way it looks, too. The sprawling shots in the casinos are amazing and the desert scenes stunning. Also it has James Woods in ultimate sleaze mode.

rjd2

Goodfellas is just much more fun really and Pesci isn't half as entertaining in Casino either. Sharon Stone and James Woods performances in Casino are hugely overrated as well, they are good but no better than Paul Sovino, Liotta or the lass who played his missus.

Danger Man

Casino is the best.

Cape Fear is also a masterpiece. The Departed is shit.

Thank you for reading.

DJ Solid Snail

There isn't a single frame of Goodfellas that drags, and the last 20 minutes in particular I think are incredibly constructed - probably one of the best-done falls from grace for a protagonist in the classic 'rise and fall' arc that I've ever seen. The glamour and the power just seem to fizzle out as Hill gets increasingly indulgent with his coke use, and you just know something's going to come to a head, either with his wife - given how much more time he starts spending with his equally coked-out comare, or with the cops - his drug abuse leading to erratic behaviour which will no doubt lead to more mistakes in his work, particularly as he's started selling drugs, which is unfamiliar and pretty dodgy territory, or with the Mafia itself - what with its being opposed to its members pushing dope. His friend Tommy's not long been whacked, and after the high of the JFK heist, Jimmy's greedily killing all the people involved has an incredible 'beginning of the end' feel to it, and a great summation of the inevitability of the life these people have chosen. The scenes with Liotta rushing around in his car, chalked to the gourd, paranoid of overhead helicopters and all soundtracked by a series of brilliantly-selected songs like Monkey Man, Memo from Turner, Jump into the Fire, I'm a Man, What is Life and the like is just amazingly paced and for me it's one of the most satisfying climaxes to any film ever.

Casino, on the other hand, is very good, but sloppy, overlong, not very tight, and it just senselessly chucks its songs all over the place. The songs are all great, but I couldn't identify most of them with any one scene. The soundtrack's one of the things I like most about Scorsese's films, and while there's dozens of examples in Goodfellas in songs that just feel perfectly placed, and they totally compliment the scene, really making them memorable, there's only about two examples of that in Casino for me - Devo's 'Satisfaction' over the machine-gunning of that house, and Georges Delerue's 'Theme de Camille' from the Contempt soundtrack, over that scene in the desert. Don't get me wrong, though, Casino is very, very good indeed, but Goodfellas it isn't.

Plus 'underrated' and 'overrated' are just the hole to the film's doughnut. They don't affect the taste one bit.

biggytitbo

Quote from: rjd2 on March 17, 2010, 11:01:09 PM
Goodfellas is just much more fun really and Pesci isn't half as entertaining in Casino either. Sharon Stone and James Woods performances in Casino are hugely overrated as well, they are good but no better than Paul Sovino, Liotta or the lass who played his missus.

The whole show in both films is De Niro and Pesci, and both are superior in Casino in my opinion. De Niro is disappointingly underused in Goodfellas, whereas he's fucking awesome in Casino, the absolute centre of the film. Pesci, the star turn of Goodfellas, is also better in Casino. A more complex and nuanced character than the comic book psycho of Goodfellas. And his death scene in Casino is amongst the most gut wrenching ever commited to film.

biggytitbo

Quote from: DJ Solid Snail on March 17, 2010, 11:06:35 PM
There isn't a single frame of Goodfellas that drags, and the last 20 minutes in particular I think are incredibly constructed - probably one of the best-done falls from grace for a protagonist in the classic 'rise and fall' arc that I've ever seen. The glamour and the power just seem to fizzle out as Hill gets increasingly indulgent with his coke use, and you just know something's going to come to a head, either with his wife - given how much more time he starts spending with his equally coked-out comare, or with the cops - his drug abuse leading to erratic behaviour which will no doubt lead to more mistakes in his work, particularly as he's started selling drugs, which is unfamiliar and pretty dodgy territory, or with the Mafia itself - what with its being opposed to its members pushing dope. His friend Tommy's not long been whacked, and after the high of the JFK heist, Jimmy's greedily killing all the people involved has an incredible 'beginning of the end' feel to it, and a great summation of the inevitability of the life these people have chosen. The scenes with Liotta rushing around in his car, chalked to the gourd, paranoid of overhead helicopters and all soundtracked by a series of brilliantly-selected songs like Monkey Man, Memo from Turner, Jump into the Fire, I'm a Man, What is Life and the like is just amazingly paced and for me it's one of the most satisfying climaxes to any film ever.

Casino, on the other hand, is very good, but sloppy, overlong, not very tight, and it just senselessly chucks its songs all over the place. The songs are all great, but I couldn't identify most of them with any one scene. The soundtrack's one of the things I like most about Scorsese's films, and while there's dozens of examples in Goodfellas in songs that just feel perfectly placed, and they totally compliment the scene, really making them memorable, there's only about two examples of that in Casino for me - Devo's 'Satisfaction' over the machine-gunning of that house, and Georges Delerue's 'Theme de Camille' from the Contempt soundtrack, over that scene in the desert. Don't get me wrong, though, Casino is very, very good indeed, but Goodfellas it isn't.

Plus 'underrated' and 'overrated' are just the hole to the film's doughnut. They don't affect the taste one bit.
I always found the last 20 minutes of Goodfellas a bit flabby and aimless myself. Whereas the last 20 minutes of Casino delivers on the tension of the previous 2 and a half hours, delivering a climax to to the previous events that is absolutely compelling and gut wrenching. Goodfellas in comparison sort of drifts away at the end.

Danger Man

This

QuoteNicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go fuck themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle.

and this



put 'Casino' above 99/100 movies in any given year.

biggytitbo

I like the fact that James Woods' character is kept fairly enigmatic. We never do find exactly why Stone's character is so devoted to him. It's one of the many subtleties throughout.

Danger Man

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 17, 2010, 11:24:42 PM
I like the fact that James Woods' character is kept fairly enigmatic. We never do find exactly why Stone's character is so devoted to him. It's one of the many subtleties throughout.

It's a sleazier version of Harvey Keitel and Jodie Foster in 'Taxi Driver'.

DJ Solid Snail

Mmmm, I suppose Casino's ending is a great deal more, ah, cathartic and, well, satisfying generally, but I think Goodfellas has far more memorable things in it than Casino does and I just love its remarkable pacing and the vastness of its scope and the cut of its jib. I certainly don't agree that it drifts away; I think it's got a suitably climactic climax. They are both ridiculously ace, though, and this has all just reminded me how much I'm looking forward to his* gangster TV series 'Boardwalk Empire.'

*Having just looked it up, it seems he's executive producer on one episode and that's it - but it's got Sopranos directors and writers on it, so it should be rather good nonetheless. I'm reading and am thoroughly engaged by 'The Valachi Papers' at the minute, so I'm right in the mood for this '30s style Mafia stuff (it starts off with his early years in the mob, you see, and details the wars of the early '30s - I finally know where "going on/to the matresses" comes from!).

biggytitbo

Scorsese directs the first episode of Boardwalk Empire apparently.

On a Scorsese related note, I saw the Departed recently. An enjoyable film, but a pale shadow of his best work. Shame he won the Oscar for that and not Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas or Casino.

Serge

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 17, 2010, 11:08:57 PM
The whole show in both films is De Niro and Pesci
No, no, no. Admittedly, Pesci is one of the best things about 'Goodfellas', but to see it as a Robert De Niro film is approaching it in the wrong way entirely. It's Ray Liotta's entire existence for living, given the state of pretty much everything else he's ever been in, and he is superb in every single scene. And Lorraine Bracco is far better than Sharon Stone. Also, as has been pointed out above: Paul Sorvino. And: The bloke who plays Morrie.

'Goodfellas' is an absolute masterpiece of editing, it has a rhythm which propels it throughout its entire running time and the soundtrack is incredible. 'Casino' has some great moments, but lacks the rhythm and comes across as flabby and overlong. I've been known to say that, although neither are strictly my favourite films, there are only two entirely perfect films I've ever seen - 'Goodfellas' and 'Dr Strangelove'.

Oh, and despite what I said about it not being a Robert De Niro film, I'm going to go ahead and post this again:
DeNiro Goodfellas bar scene

thugler

definately goodfellas. I've never thought of casino as anything more than quite good. It's very very flabby, and the plot is a bit of a mess and nowhere near as focused as goodfellas. The ending is properly shocking and horrible though, which is one thing it has.

Bennygaylord

Both turn to shite when the women hit the coke.

rudi

Serge has already said it, but Goodfellas is Liotta's film wheras Casino's De Niros'. "Casino's De Niro's": I like that.

Anyway, both great films but different from each other; comparisons cheapen them both.

Space ghost

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 17, 2010, 11:24:42 PM
I like the fact that James Woods' character is kept fairly enigmatic. We never do find exactly why Stone's character is so devoted to him. It's one of the many subtleties throughout.

Well he's a pimp and has thoroughly turned her out.

That's what I assumed anyway, though I do have a fairly extensive knowledge of the pimp game having coordinated several stables myself.


vrailaine

The whole world basically reassessed Casino about 5 years ago when it got its remastered dvd release.

I don't think I prefer either one more than the other though.

Chutney

Not much to add on a film vs film basis, but the whole "Henry's Mad Day" sequence towards the end of Goodfellas stands as one of the most brilliant pieces of editing I've ever enjoyed.

Plenty has been made about the awards (Oscar's particularly) that Goodfellas did and didn't win, but to my mind Thelma Schoonmaker missing out on a gong for that particular bit of fun was the biggest travesty of the lot.

the midnight watch baboon

I just watched Casino the once and thought it to be pretty boring and didn't justify its running time or cast, crew. Goodfellas was much more compelling and engrossing. I would watch Casino again an' reappraise it. I will one day.

niat

This thread has inspired me to check out Casino again. I will report back with my reappraisal in due course.




If I actually do re-watch it that is, and not just add it to my gigantic pile of DVDs to watch.

I think Casino is certainly one of the last truly great De Niro performances. Some of the later stuff is heartbreaking. Was it the last time he and Scorsese collaborated? My nineties are a little hazy.
As to the enigmatic nature of James Wood's character and Gingers devotion to him, I always thought it played on the fact that Woods is reputedly hung like a particularly fortunate donkey.

biggytitbo

Surprising yes, that is their last collaboration to date, although there are rumours they'll be working together again soon. De Niro is awesome in Casino and both him and Pesci (and the film) benefit from having more interesting and complex characters than in Goodfellas.

Johnny Townmouse

#23
I think on paper Casino seems like the better film, what with the larger scope of the story, Sharon Stone's morally redundent magpie and James Woods enigmatically sleazy character who has this fabulous hold over Stone. The cinematography is fantastic, the location is used incredibly well with the city dropped into the middle of this barren corpse-ridden desert. Pesci's character is great- and he comes into the film as a useful reminder of who De Niro used to be and has escaped from. Pesci is still a hood and De Niro is trying to distance himself from that, understanding that violence and illegal pursuits have to be applied in a smart and controlled way, not just doled out through anger and frustartion. The scene where De Niro confronts Stone in a restaurant after she ties their child to a bed is incredible - as is the scene when De Niro confronts her with Woods. The violence is both startling and affecting, the way it should be. The vice scene, the hammered hand scene...and of course the final moments with the baseball bats and live burial...are neither salacious or dropped in for effect. In fact, I would say that the final scenes are the most psychologically difficult presentation of violence I have ever seen. It's subjective of course, but neither Salo nor Irreversible affected me as much as the cold-blooded way those men are killed.

BUT....Goodfellas for me is the better film, and I think this thread, even devoid of discussion on Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy, Raging Bull and Cape Fear, show how fantastic this man is. Goodfellas has it all and is a masterclass in cinema, for my money. The historical breadth of the film, Liotta's performance as the half-Italian poor kid come good, who is never accepted into the 'family' and therefore has more scope to be disloyal, is spellbinding. There are too many scenes to recount, but the first time Henry brings Karen to the club, with that long hand-held camera shot, is genius. Add in the pistol whipping scene, Scorsese's Mum, Spider getting shot, Morie, the music, the pacing, the editing, the build towards Henry getting caught (stir the sauce), Karen's paranoia that De Niro wants her killed....it's just cinema at its best.
For me the scene in the diner with Henry understanding that Jimmy is trying to get him whacked is a great piece of subtextual cinema, perhaps only let-down by the expositional vioce-over, but the VO throughout the film is so spectacular that it is forgiven.

Comparing these two films is like comparing which of my wife's eyes I like the best, which as I said is testament to Scorsese's brilliance. If he had not made Goodfellas I think this film would have got the oscar. It comes down to minute details, but I think the humour and the pace of Goodfellas edges it ahead.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Casino is overlong and predictable. The first half an hour is one of the most instantly unlikeable smug pieces of shit ever committed to screen. It's basically just a music video with a voice over.

When the music finishes and the story starts, it does get quite good. The middle of the film is enjoyable. As Johnny Townmouse says, there are a number of enjoyable set pieces and moments scattered around.

It just isn't up to scratch, versus Goodfellas, versus any number of Gangster films and it's incomparable with most of De Niro's best work. The main problem is it really is nowhere near as good as it thinks it is. It gets carried away by its own premise and at some intangible point forgets the basics of storytelling and just flabs all over you like a fat sweaty stomach.

biggytitbo

I think it a valid criticism, and maybe the one thing that would mark it down for me, but the opening 20-30 minutes of Casino is strangely muddled and confusing. It darts about back and forward in time but not in any kind of meaningful way. Although having said that, I do quite like how the different characters voiceovers respond to each other.

Once it gets into its stride and starts telling the story, its magnificent.

bennett

I like both and won't hold one above the other as they're very different vehicles. 

However, the scene where De Niro comes round his desk bottomless and put son his trousers - which you realise he's hung up because his OCD won't let him put creases in them - was a brilliant touch at establishing his character.  It's the little touches like that that litter Casino that in my opinion show it had more thought put into it, at least at a character development level.

biggytitbo

Quote from: bennett on March 18, 2010, 01:26:20 PM
I like both and won't hold one above the other as they're very different vehicles. 

However, the scene where De Niro comes round his desk bottomless and put son his trousers - which you realise he's hung up because his OCD won't let him put creases in them - was a brilliant touch at establishing his character.  It's the little touches like that that litter Casino that in my opinion show it had more thought put into it, at least at a character development level.

Yeah and him demanding that all the muffins have the same amount of blueberries in. And him weighing all the showgirls to make sure theyre exactly the right weight. Brilliant stuff.

lipsink

Casino has some of the funniest bits from Scorsese's career: the guy being told off by his mother (Scorsese's mother) for swearing, the fed helicopter landing on DeNiro's lawn, Pesci being abusive during blackjack, Pesci with the cowboy, there's also a great putdown from Pesci when he criticises DeNiro's dressing gown (I can't remember it right now).

And the baseball bat scene is fucking horrific.

But still, Goodfelllas I much prefer. Casino is too long and all over the place. It's bloody enjoyable nevetheless and feels like a guilty pleasure if that makes sense.

kngen

Other than the assertion that it's a better film that Goodfellas, I agree with almost everything BTB says about Casino. It's a fantastic film that would represent the high point of almost any other director (and cast) in the history of cinema. That is has found itself playing second-fiddle to Goodfellas is merely testament to how good a film-maker Scorsese used to be.

As far as the Departed goes, it's as if Scorsese took a perfect 3-minute pop song (Infernal Affairs) and turned into in a sprawling 15-minute jam session, and all the worse for it. I can still can't figure out what the fuck he was thinking when he did that.