View Full Version : Goodfellas vs Casino
brunny78
02-02-2003, 22:31
Just had a lazy sunday watching these two films back to back. Having watched both many times before, i've finally settled on what i now feel to be certain: Casino is a much fuller, deeper, more satisfying piece of movie making, and, contrary to popular and critical opinion, by far the better film. Am i the only person who sees the strikingly obvious?
Both are in my top 10 films. There's little in it - both are superb - but Goodfellas is a little bit better.
Both are stunning movies with IMO, "Casino" being unfairly under-rated due to it's similarity to "GoodFellas" .... and yes, i too believe Casino to be a better, more satisfying movie.
casino is a masterpiece and probably scorcese's finest film - it has all the flair of goodfellas but a good deal more depth - that most critical 'opinion' overlooked this is damning of how such passionate and brilliant filmmaking can be dismissed or diminished by near-pavlovian responses, in this instance 'it's too long'....'too similar to goodfellas' etc. in fairness, it's the type of film that ought to be seen more than once though.
the co-option of the theme to contempt is somehow apt given that both films are examplars of how the personal vision of an independently minded, ambitious filmmaker can prevail within the confines of mainstream cinema, however unlikely that may be.
danielzavitz
03-02-2003, 00:06
i just finished watching casino!
it is an absolutely fantastic film, i said so when i first saw it, when everyone was still calling it a second rate goodfellas, and i still say it now. for a long time goodfellas was my favorite film, and i still consider it a masterpiece and just better than casino but the gap has closed. more because casino seems to improve every time i see it.
is it available in an anamorphic transfer anywhere? my r2 isn't, though you'd hardly notice as the picture is pretty darn good, always thought the colours were a bit drained though.
another scorsese classic that desperately needs a SE, maybe now gangs of new york is out he'll have time to do some more commetaryizing.
brunny78
03-02-2003, 00:40
i'd love to see a s.e. with a bit more background info regarding the real sam 'ace' rothstein etc.
Jazzatola
03-02-2003, 00:48
Originally posted by brunny78
Casino is a much fuller, deeper, more satisfying piece of movie making, and...by far the better film. Am i the only person who sees the strikingly obvious?Nope. I agree too. I sold my bare-bones Casino dvd some time ago, hope there's something to replace it with soon.
Goodfellas all the way. Scorsese’s greatest work, although I’m also fond of Casino.
Casino is obviously using Goodfellas as a template. Perhaps more than the casting of Pesci and DeNiro is the use of voiceover – when Frank Vincent gets to do it too you know it’s overkill.
Without (all of) the voiceovers, or perhaps without Pesci, the film would have done better. I reckon the fact that Goodfellas was being leaned on so heavily was the reason it was virtually ignored at the Oscars*. That said, whilst his role is in just about every way a reprise, Pesci does add a lot to it. Even his use of the word ‘degenerate’ makes me laugh every time I hear it, not to mention ‘Charley M’.
*I reckon Scorsese took notes though when he went to see the film that landed the Oscar that year!
tj_director
03-02-2003, 02:17
i wonder what level of admiration of Casino would have recieved had Goodfellas never existed (although that's a bit of a paradox).. but i agree i think Casino would have got a lot more praise.. it seems very left out when people do the usual list of Scorcese's greatest films.
i don't think i can ever forget the vice scene, and just in general i remember feeling more tense and worried about the characters in Casino. But i haven't seen either for some time.
The DVD for Casino was really poor, the transfer looked bad on a 14" screen, dread to think what it would look like on anything big. A re-release is badly needed!!
unlucky alf
03-02-2003, 08:45
I prefer Casino over Goodfellas for the same reasons as Brunny78. I still think Goodfellas is an excellent film but Casino is a little better.
danielzavitz, The R1 I have is anamorphic and can be picked up quite cheap.
jonathan.e
03-02-2003, 08:51
Casino is terrible - the *******, vulgar off-spring of Goodfellas and an inept piece of filmmaking as I’ve seen in the last 20 years. Any movie that has the first 15 minutes told almost entirely in voiceover has a director who’s no longer able to tell a story with images and character dialogue. This movie marked the beginning of the end for Scorsese and he hasn’t made a good film since. People who like it, IMO, seem to confuse length with quality.
The reason i prefer Casino to Goodfellas is the fact that De Niro is in almost every scene. One of his finest performances and definitely his best role in years. In fact has he done anything better since Casino?
Captain_Chaos
03-02-2003, 09:42
Heat? came out the same year...
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Casino is terrible - the *******, vulgar off-spring of Goodfellas and an inept piece of filmmaking as I’ve seen in the last 20 years. Any movie that has the first 15 minutes told almost entirely in voiceover has a director who’s no longer able to tell a story with images and character dialogue. This movie marked the beginning of the end for Scorsese and he hasn’t made a good film since. People who like it, IMO, seem to confuse length with quality. Well, seeing as most people on here love it, this shows that you're the one who's confused:D You like slating films, which a lot of other people like. In fact, why don't u take your head out of your own arse and realise everyone else's opinion of a film counts as much as yours.
Originally posted by nc
In fact, why don't u take your head out of your own arse and realise everyone else's opinion of a film counts as much as yours.
:lol:
I actually thought the opening 15-20 minute montage was one of the best openings to a movie ever. I found it to be a fascinating look at what happened behind-the-scenes in Vegas, beautifully edited (something u cant say about the recent Gangs of New York) & with great music running inbetween the voice-over.
brunny78
03-02-2003, 11:18
Originally posted by geek
The reason i prefer Casino to Goodfellas is the fact that De Niro is in almost every scene. One of his finest performances and definitely his best role in years. In fact has he done anything better since Casino?
possibly Jackie Brown
but i agree he does turn in an amazing performance
danielzavitz
03-02-2003, 11:35
i also love the opening, and if you think the film is overlong imagine how much longer it would have been if they'd set up everyones background with character dialogue rather than the to the point voice over.
I think "Casino" is Scorsese's best work, the best film of the nineties and one of the finest pieces of filmmaking of the 20th Century. It's deeper, more complex, better played and much more insightful into the dark side of America than "Goodfellas" - Pesci is particularly fantastic, bringing depth to the show-off killer turn he created in "Goodfellas", especially in his scenes with Sharon Stone (who is overrated in this role but still works very hard). I like the use of voiceover a great deal, particularly in the opening section, and the whole idea of Las Vegas as a hell of neon emptiness is a wonderful complement to "Mean Streets".
I can't watch it without becoming emotionall committed to the characters, and the final scene
where Pesci is buried alive and pleads for the life of his brother
is incredibly, complicatedly moving. Ian Christie's comment about Scorsese's biblical compassion for the bad deaths of bad men is right on the money. There's not a single scene, visual idea or soundtrack choice in "Goodfellas" which isn't done better in "Casino", as far as I'm concerned. I doubt Scorsese will ever better the film, at least in its representation of the human wreckage created by crime and the corruption of the spirit.
Originally posted by nc
Well, seeing as most people on here love it, this shows that you're the one who's confused:D You like slating films, which a lot of other people like. In fact, why don't u take your head out of your own arse and realise everyone else's opinion of a film counts as much as yours.
That's rather unfair. I don't agree with Jonathan e's comment either but he's quite entitled to make it.
I like 'Goodfellas' but Mike sums up 'Casino' for me perfectly in his post above - certainly one of the most underrated movies of the 1990's & another pearl in the Robert Richardson canon, who rarely (if ever) gets any credit for his work herein.
jonathan.e
03-02-2003, 11:53
Originally posted by nc
Well, seeing as most people on here love it, this shows that you're the one who's confused:D You like slating films, which a lot of other people like. In fact, why don't u take your head out of your own arse and realise everyone else's opinion of a film counts as much as yours.
Oh dear, what a tragic figure you are. God forbid anyone should have an opinion that runs contrary to others. Let’s all think, talk and act the same shall we?
Your last sentence betrays you for the ignorant, intolerant and blinkered person you obviously are, unable to articulate an opposing POV without resorting to insults - Very sad.
BTW - Original poster is soliciting opinion so my comments are perfectly valid - all the moreso because you don’t agree with them.
avid fan
03-02-2003, 16:14
Both great films, but have to say I prefer Goodfellas.
I don't know if I could bring myself to watch Casino again - saw it at the cinema and it was the only time when I thought I was going to bring up my dinner whilst watching a film (happened in a couple of places - you can probably guess which).
avid fan
03-02-2003, 16:14
edited
avid fan
03-02-2003, 16:14
edited
Michael Brooke
03-02-2003, 16:37
Oddly enough, the most frequent complaints made about <I>Casino</I> are virtually identical to ones that I made about <I>GoodFellas</I> when I saw it back in 1990 - I thought it was a formidably virtuoso piece of film-making (and riveting on that score alone) but ultimately rather hollow, with Joe Pesci's barnstorming performance upstaging and somewhat unbalancing the others. It certainly didn't break much in the way of new ground, either for Scorsese or for the mob movie in general, and it seems to me that it shares many of the same faults as <I>Gangs of New York</I> - another film I thoroughly enjoyed almost despite itself.
So I think <I>Casino</I> has suffered unfairly by comparison, and that if you take Pesci out of the equation the similarities with <I>GoodFellas</I> are nowhere near as pronounced as they might otherwise seem. I completely agree that the first half is amongst the best things that Scorsese has ever done (what on earth is wrong with voiceover, anyway?), and while I don't quite share Mike's ultimate regard for it, I certainly think that it and the similarly underrated <I>The Age of Innocence</I> emphatically give the lie to the frequently-repeated canard that Scorsese hasn't made a decent film since 1991 (as though <I>GoodFellas</I> and the ludicrously overblown <I>Cape Fear</I> were career peaks).
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Casino is terrible - the *******, vulgar off-spring of Goodfellas and an inept piece of filmmaking as I’ve seen in the last 20 years.
Certainly an off-spring of Goodfellas, but hardly terrible, vulgar or inept. And you must have seen more ineptitude in the last 20 years. Countless Star Trek films, not to mention everything Scorsese has made since.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Any movie that has the first 15 minutes told almost entirely in voiceover has a director who’s no longer able to tell a story with images and character dialogue.
It's overdone, sure. But it would have been far less obvious if it wasn't for Goodfellas. If he'd kept it to one character (meaning DeNiro), he'd probably have gotten away clean. A few of the best films of the last 15 years have leaned heavily on voiceover, some even using it to churn the movie along from start to finish. Goodfellas, Shawshank... and the best example of the lot, Mother Night.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
This movie marked the beginning of the end for Scorsese and he hasn’t made a good film since.
No he hasn't. And I don't think he made anything particularly worthwhile between Goodfellas and Casino either. So to me it seemed like an attempt to recreate his finest hour and it was thus used as a template throughout (there are also setups from The Colour Of Money repeated verbatim). I don't think he has much left in the tank. But if he decides to remake Goodfellas again (and no, Gangs doesn't come close with its two wooden lead characters) there's every chance it will be thoroughly entertaining, if ultimately unoriginal.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
People who like it, IMO, seem to confuse length with quality.
Why do you think that? The evidence doesn't suggest it. Just based on regular forum members, you wont find the Casino fans falling into the category of rhapsodising about the likes of Dr Zhivago, Dances With Wolves or Titanic. Practically the opposite - there doesn't seem to be a pattern there at all.
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
and the similarly underrated <I>The Age of Innocence</I>
I could waste a few minutes producing several paragraphs full of big complicated words to describe my feelings towards the above movie, but I think the following sums up my feelings perfectly!....
... :gag:
Originally posted by TonyG
I could waste a few minutes producing several paragraphs full of big complicated words to describe my feelings towards the above movie, but I think the following sums up my feelings perfectly!....
... :gag:
I didn't care for it either. It never really felt like Scorsese had a flair for this type of material, as enjoyed by the likes of James Ivory and Milos Forman (& Stanley Kubrick in his one and only attempt).
jonathan.e
03-02-2003, 17:16
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
(what on earth is wrong with voiceover, anyway?)
In and of itself - nothing, but used for that long as a lead-in it smacks of (to me) an inability to introduce the characters in a more sohpisticated and satisfying way. Were the running time of the picture brief I could forgive some of it but it runs for a bloated 3 hours and in the end it’s a slight story, not exactly Once Upon a Time in America or The Godfather. Maybe Marty has a secret hankering to produce talking books, I don’t know.
Originally posted by McD
Certainly an off-spring of Goodfellas, but hardly terrible, vulgar or inept. And you must have seen more ineptitude in the last 20 years. Countless Star Trek films, not to mention everything Scorsese has made since.
Alright, a little exaggeration for effect but I still think it’s vulgar with it’s overblown production design, it’s excessive violence and Pesci’s replaying of his Goodfellas character. A director with more self-awareness would certainly not have cast that actor in that role so soon after GF. I suppose one could say the same about De Niro but at least he has more range and his character was somewhat different to his GF role.
Originally posted by McD
It's overdone, sure. But it would have been far less obvious if it wasn't for Goodfellas. If he'd kept it to one character (meaning DeNiro), he'd probably have gotten away clean. A few of the best films of the last 15 years have leaned heavily on voiceover, some even using it to churn the movie along from start to finish. Goodfellas, Shawshank... and the best example of the lot, Mother Night.
I don’t object to it’s use per se, just that the opening 15 minutes or so are totally reliant upon it.
Originally posted by McD
No he hasn't. And I don't think he made anything particularly worthwhile between Goodfellas and Casino either. So to me it seemed like an attempt to recreate his finest hour and it was thus used as a template throughout (there are also setups from The Colour Of Money repeated verbatim). I don't think he has much left in the tank.
Agreed.
Originally posted by McD
Why do you think that? The evidence doesn't suggest it. Just based on regular forum members, you wont find the Casino fans falling into the category of rhapsodising about the likes of Dr Zhivago, Dances With Wolves or Titanic. Practically the opposite - there doesn't seem to be a pattern there at all.
That was my impression and also the one I took away from the movie itself: That Scorsese himself equates dramatic weight with a long running time. I saw Casino close the LFF years back and there was plenty of uncomfortable shifting around in seats and while silence did not greet the director upon the end of the movie, the applause seemed subdued to me. Speaking to friends and industry bods afterwards the general consensus was "too long, needlessly violent, too Goodfellas" and it’s an opinion I shared then and continue to hold now.
The Bear
03-02-2003, 17:37
I have to disagree with the opinion that he's done nothing of any worth after Casino. I thought Bringing Out The Dead was excellent, and superbly cast.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Oh dear, what a tragic figure you are. God forbid anyone should have an opinion that runs contrary to others. Let’s all think, talk and act the same shall we?
Your last sentence betrays you for the ignorant, intolerant and blinkered person you obviously are, unable to articulate an opposing POV without resorting to insults - Very sad.
BTW - Original poster is soliciting opinion so my comments are perfectly valid - all the moreso because you don’t agree with them. The only insults I can see are the ones u have laid on this great film. Sure,everyone has their own view - I dislike 90% of films coming out of Hollywood these days. But I wouldn't give the worst film such a scathing review as u give Casino. Obviously you've got a massive chip on your shoulder and are not going to get very far in the movie reviewing business. I would trust a Paul Ross review more than one of yours:D
jonathan.e
03-02-2003, 18:02
Originally posted by nc
The only insults I can see are the ones u have laid on this great film.
Really. Your needless insults were pointed out by another poster - Maybe you should go back and review them.
Originally posted by nc
But I wouldn't give the worst film such a scathing review as u give Casino. Obviously you've got a massive chip on your shoulder and are not going to get very far in the movie reviewing business.
You thought that was scathing! I wasn’t even trying and where do you get that I’m in the "movie review' business? And what would I have a chip about pray tell?
Originally posted by nc
I would trust a Paul Ross review more than one of yours:D
Coming from you that’s praise indeed and hopefully my POV will continue to be diametrically opposed to yours.
I enjoy Goodfellas the most by an inch, probably because it is more of a classical mob story which appeals to me personally. Casino is a fantastic film though, I love a nice, long, spralling, ultra violent (let's be honest, these people were), well acted, Scorcese film spanning several decades. Beautiful!
father_christmas
03-02-2003, 18:05
For me Casino is the perfect film, great actors, great script, great editing, great cinematography, great directing, great music!! .. I find it one of the most gripping and emotional movies i've ever seen.
As for "Goodfellas", well i think it's a good film, very interesting and exciting, it tells a story, but it still doesn't beat Casino..
My vote goes 2 ~ Casino :thumbs:
quote:
Originally posted by nc
I would trust a Paul Ross review more than one of yours
Coming from you that’s praise indeed and hopefully my POV will continue to be diametrically opposed to yours.
Well I'm glad u see that as praise, 'cos Paul Ross is an utter moron and a menace to society.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
You thought that was scathing! I wasn’t even trying and where do you get that I’m in the "movie review' business? And what would I have a chip about pray tell?
http://thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120648&highlight=red+dragon
:lol: :lol:
jonathan.e
03-02-2003, 18:20
Originally posted by nc
http://thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120648&highlight=red+dragon
:lol: :lol:
And your point is? Writing the odd review doesn’t make it my full time job as you infer. Try harder.
What a great judge of character I am! Now I know why nc is on my ignore list:D I wouldn't have been able to see what he put if it wasn't for quotes but I now know I was the one in the right as I haven't upset anyone on here and nc as now peeved off more people than just me.
:clap:
Originally posted by chris21
What a great judge of character I am! Now I know why nc is on my ignore list:D I wouldn't have been able to see what he put if it wasn't for quotes but I now know I was the one in the right as I haven't upset anyone on here and nc as now peeved off more people than just me.
:clap:
...for the benefit of the chris21 haters out there. :)
Originally posted by McD
...for the benefit of the chris21 haters out there. :)
:D ;)
Originally posted by chris21
What a great judge of character I am! Now I know why nc is on my ignore list:D I wouldn't have been able to see what he put if it wasn't for quotes but I now know I was the one in the right as I haven't upset anyone on here and nc as now peeved off more people than just me.
:clap: What on earth are u on about:confused:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
And your point is? Writing the odd review doesn’t make it my full time job as you infer. Try harder. Since when did I say u were in the reviewing business full-time? All I said is that u won't get very far in it.
Nice and hot in this forum - Excellent.
For what it's worth I believe Casino was essentially Goodfellas Part Two. The casting of DeNero and Pesci in what are almost identical roles in both films was probably deliberate. As was the similarity in visual syle and repeated use of voice-over.
For this reason Casino will always compare unfavourably to it's earlier brother, even though it is as good if not better.
How would Goodfellas have been received if it had been the later of the two films to be released I wonder.
Would we all be talking about Casino, robbed at the Oscars.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Oh dear, what a tragic figure you are. God forbid anyone should have an opinion that runs contrary to others. Let’s all think, talk and act the same shall we?
Your last sentence betrays you for the ignorant, intolerant and blinkered person you obviously are, unable to articulate an opposing POV without resorting to insults - Very sad.
BTW - Original poster is soliciting opinion so my comments are perfectly valid - all the moreso because you don’t agree with them.
Look son, ye watch CSI ffs, ma wife wotches that along with Eastenders and the likes so weesht. I think the original intention of this thread was to show appreciation for 2 of the best and imo equally good films ever made, but theres always 1 chav who completley misses the point and makes an @r$e of himself, and that chav is jonnybag.p
Tom Whitaker
03-02-2003, 22:46
I think the fact that people say DeNiro and Pesci play the same characters in each film shows how much Goodfellas seems to colour people's judgement of Casino - in the latter, part of what makes it for me a better film is the powerplay between the two leads, one of whom revels in the violence and actively seeks it out, the other who uses it as a necessary evil. That, and his relationship with Sharon Stone's character, make for a far more interesting character upon which to centre the film, one which I'd happily call an utter masterpiece from the opening frame to the last, as close to perfection as any Hollywood movie of the 90s I can think of, and (for me) a notably better film that Goodfellas.
I thought I was alone. Glad to know I'm not :D
Originally posted by Br00n
Look son, ye watch CSI ffs, ma wife wotches that along with Eastenders and the likes so weesht. I think the original intention of this thread was to show appreciation for 2 of the best and imo equally good films ever made, but theres always 1 chav who completley misses the point and makes an @r$e of himself, and that chav is jonnybag.p
:notworthy Br00n :notworthy
jonathan.e
04-02-2003, 01:08
Originally posted by Br00n
Look son, ye watch CSI ffs, ma wife wotches that along with Eastenders and the likes so weesht.
Translation?
Originally posted by Br00n
I think...
I doubt that.
Originally posted by Br00n
....and makes an @r$e of himself, and that chav is jonnybag.p
What is it with you and nc and arses? Something latent there that you’re not telling us?
Originally posted by jonathan.e
What is it with you and nc and arses? There definitely is something wrong with u. I think u live in the same world as Michael Jackson.
Nobody shares your view - deal with it!
Now if the thread was entitled 'What do u think of Casino?' - then I wouldn't have a problem with your attack on Casino. Everyone has their own view and say. But Guess what - it isn't. For instance, I really dislike Star Trek. But I'm not pathetic enough to jump in one of the ST threads, say how appalling it is, and upset a lot of people. Maybe if there is a 'Do u like Star Trek' thread, I'd post. Otherwise I stay well clear of ST threads.
This is the last time I'm posting on this thread, so please be mature enough to let it return to topic.
jonathan.e
04-02-2003, 10:14
Originally posted by nc
Nobody shares your view - deal with it!
Sorry, is this a democracy we live in?
Originally posted by nc
Now if the thread was entitled 'What do u think of Casino?' - then I wouldn't have a problem with your attack on Casino.
--------
Originally posted by brunny78
Casino is a much fuller, deeper, more satisfying piece of movie making, and, contrary to popular and critical opinion, by far the better film. Am i the only person who sees the strikingly obvious?
-------
Original poster is inviting comment and indeed qualifies his remarks by admitting that Casino is generally viewed as the lesser flick which is essentially my opinion also. I don’t think brunny78’s opening post was directed only toward people who agreed with him, indeed he is soliciting debate on his opinion which he admits runs contrary to both the mass and critical POV.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Alright, a little exaggeration for effect but I still think it’s vulgar with it’s overblown production design
Er, Las Vegas, The 70's, would it be possible to "overblow" the design????
Symo
Morpheus2000
04-02-2003, 11:56
Originally posted by nc
Since when did I say u were in the reviewing business full-time? All I said is that u won't get very far in it.
Here's me thinking the forums were a nice friendly place. :confused:
I'm not taking anybody's side, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. Why are you insulting each other? It'll get you nowhere and you only end up annoying yourselves.
bioneuro
04-02-2003, 12:32
Wow! My first post, and I thought this forum might be a little "dry".
My 2-cents worth : Both are great films. Goodfellas is technically more accomplished and IS the better film, but I have to admit that on re(re..re..re)repeated viewings I seem to enjoy watching Casino more. Go figure.:eek:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Translation?
Translated -
That ye bat fur the other side ya daft wummin, now give everybody peace ya bawbag. Yur a fair excited chav wi aw yur reviewin nonsense and no very guid at it! Ind in the name of the wee man gie it a rest wi aw yur actin intelligent ya bufty :nono:
Just Call Me Wanda
04-02-2003, 12:58
I'll speak english then! ;)
Haven't seen Goodfellas for a long time, can't remember the last time I saw Pesci saying 'so you think I'm funny!'
Saw Casino much recently, and I think I have trouble following the film because I'm in total bewilderment of Pesci's performance. My opinion of the two would be summed up as - Goodfellas is the masterpiece, Casino is the attempt to recreate that masterpiece along a similar template and ultimately failing.
Getting the same group of people together again works only so much, before you find yourself trying to out-do yourself, but not always for the better. Casino has a little too much gloss, and a refined finish to rival the utter brilliance of Goodfellas.
jonathan.e
04-02-2003, 13:00
Originally posted by Br00n
Translated -
That ye bat fur the other side ya daft wummin, now give everybody peace ya bawbag. Yur a fair excited chav wi aw yur reviewin nonsense and no very guid at it! Ind in the name of the wee man gie it a rest wi aw yur actin intelligent ya bufty :nono:
:confused:
Sorry Rab, I don’t speak Scotch (sic).
Just Call Me Wanda
04-02-2003, 13:09
Originally posted by nc
There definitely is something wrong with u. I think u live in the same world as Michael Jackson.
Nobody shares your view - deal with it!
Now if the thread was entitled 'What do u think of Casino?' - then I wouldn't have a problem with your attack on Casino. Everyone has their own view and say. But Guess what - it isn't. For instance, I really dislike Star Trek. But I'm not pathetic enough to jump in one of the ST threads, say how appalling it is, and upset a lot of people. Maybe if there is a 'Do u like Star Trek' thread, I'd post. Otherwise I stay well clear of ST threads.
This is the last time I'm posting on this thread, so please be mature enough to let it return to topic.
Returning to the topic would be good, but not as entertaining as a good old argument.
As far as I could tell, Jon.e was just giving his opinion, and you chimed in with - 'Well, seeing as most people on here love it, this shows that you're the one who's confused'.
I maybe saying this because I'm one the 'pathetic' ones who would toddle into a Star Trek: Nemesis thread, say how absolutely crap it is, and toddle out.
davey1970
04-02-2003, 13:56
both films are great but i just prefer the story in goodfellas, and the timespan and change in circumstances in it. its stunning.
oh and surely anyone is allowed to insult the films, it's just each other we shouldn't insult.
d
Originally posted by jonathan.e
:confused:
Sorry Rab, I don’t speak Scotch (sic).
Just as I thought, as ignorant as you are irritating, I dont speak SCOTCH either but I have been known throw a few SCOTTISH words/phrases into my vocabulary/phrasebook. :suspect:
Originally posted by Br00n
Just as I thought, as ignorant as you are irritating, I dont speak SCOTCH either but I have been known throw a few SOTTISH words/phrases into my vocabulary/phrasebook. :suspect:
br00n - brilliant post. It's only a pity that jonnybag.p acknowledged the incorrect spelling of SCOTCH, whilst you seem blissfully unaware of your misspelling of SOTTISH.
Nevermind all that, I'd pay good money to see you do a full review of anything (preferably something like City Of God or The Painist) in that hilarious SOTTISH style of yours. Frankly, 'weesht' just isn't used enough for my liking.
Here's tae yur next fiftae posts wee laddie.
jonathan.e
04-02-2003, 16:22
Originally posted by Just Call Me Wanda
As far as I could tell, Jon.e was just giving his opinion, and you chimed in with - 'Well, seeing as most people on here love it, this shows that you're the one who's confused'.
Exactly. Thanks for that JCMW. Let’s also not forget nc’s uncalled for "head up arse" comment.
Originally posted by Br00n
Just as I thought, as ignorant as you are irritating, I dont speak SCOTCH either but I have been known throw a few SOTTISH words/phrases into my vocabulary/phrasebook. :suspect:
Better lay off the Scotch (no sic. this time!) :lol:
Originally posted by McD
br00n - brilliant post. It's only a pity that jonnybag.p acknowledged the incorrect spelling of SCOTCH, whilst you seem blissfully unaware of your misspelling of SOTTISH.
Nevermind all that, I'd pay good money to see you do a full review of anything (preferably something like City Of God or The Painist) in that hilarious SOTTISH style of yours. Frankly, 'weesht' just isn't used enough for my liking.
Here's tae yur next fiftae posts wee laddie.
:thumbs: :D
Originally posted by McD
br00n - brilliant post. It's only a pity that jonnybag.p acknowledged the incorrect spelling of SCOTCH, whilst you seem blissfully unaware of your misspelling of SOTTISH.
Nevermind all that, I'd pay good money to see you do a full review of anything (preferably something like City Of God or The Painist) in that hilarious SOTTISH style of yours. Frankly, 'weesht' just isn't used enough for my liking.
Here's tae yur next fiftae posts wee laddie.
Nae worrys lads, that sticky C key is now sorted :D
stompontheplebs
08-01-2007, 16:20
Having just watched them both, I've decided to revive this 3 year old thread just to say that, IMO, Casino kills it :thumbs:
I think Casino is probably the more dramatic, wider, 'better' film in the same way that Magnolia is a great film.
But Goodfellas is more accessible movie that zips along better. I think it's more about the sort of mood you're in.
'Casino' for me!
Don't get me wrong, I love 'Goodfellas' but out of the two, 'Casino' is the winner.
I've heard a lot of people say that after not seeing them both for so long and then watching them again on DVD.
Psycho :nuts:
Todd Tomorrow
08-01-2007, 17:19
Loved Goodfellas, hated Casino, which I thought was a bloated, tired and extremely noisy rehash.
The Bear
08-01-2007, 19:01
Goodfellas easily.
bollecks
08-01-2007, 19:04
I've had Goodfellas and it's OK, but where on earth do you buy this 'Casino' pizza?
Both great films but Casino edges it for me. Although I'm always placing scenes from one in the other. Just ordered them both on HD-DVD and cant wait to waste a sunday afternoon on sitting through them both again.
bioneuro
08-01-2007, 20:21
I think I remember hearing/reading somewhere that Scorcese intended to make Casino first before Goodfellas, but ended up the other way round. I guess he had rights to both of Pileggi's works.
Underlines for me that he felt the Casino story to be the more interesting of the two.
Tom Whitaker
08-01-2007, 23:42
Both great films but Casino edges it for me. Although I'm always placing scenes from one in the other. Just ordered them both on HD-DVD and cant wait to waste a sunday afternoon on sitting through them both again.
Apparently the transfer on Goodfellas isn't up to much. Would be very interested to hear what Casino is like.
SIMON ADEBISI
09-01-2007, 16:54
Goodfellas for me. I love Casino but the multiple narration killed some of it for me.
anephric
09-01-2007, 17:04
I've always thought Casino was much weaker in that I, at least, couldn't give two ***** for any of the characters, but that's only because Goodfellas inveigles Henry into your affections by making him less abhorent than any of his cohorts.
SIMON ADEBISI
09-01-2007, 17:15
Id agree with Anephric there. Ace was a prick, Tommy was a horrible prick and Ginger was just horrible.
anephric
09-01-2007, 17:45
Indeed: and Ace gives her the "key" to his life after about 5 seconds, when she's already proven to be a terrible avaricious harlot.
Apparently the transfer on Goodfellas isn't up to much. Would be very interested to hear what Casino is like.
I'll stick something on the hd-dvd pages when they arrive, probably be a while to cross the pond.
I;m amazed these are even being compared TBH, casino is very good, well made, interesting and entertaining but Goodfellas is an almost perfect film!
Squirrel God
10-01-2007, 18:50
Casino > Goodfellas
Both excellent films but I find Casino more enjoyable.
Darth Sidious
11-01-2007, 19:29
casino is better for me, however I enjoyed Donnie Brasco more, and Millers Crossing is in a class of its own.
Both very similar, seems like they're the same film at times. But I have to say I enjoyed GoodFellas more.
I can't believe it's been 10 years since we had a decent Mafia movie?!
SIMON ADEBISI
11-01-2007, 23:10
Both very similar, seems like they're the same film at times. But I have to say I enjoyed GoodFellas more.
I can't believe it's been 10 years since we had a decent Mafia movie?!
The Sopranos is so good we dont need one to be honest :D
The Sopranos is so good we dont need one to be honest :D
Good point.
DanWilde1966
21-10-2008, 10:25
The real Sam "Ace" Rothstein has died: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/21/usa
i love the films but goodfellas is better in my eyes, though casino rocks.
goodfellas is one of my most favourite films. superb cast and acting.
The Sopranos is so good we dont need one to be honest :D
Still never saw more than a handful of episodes.
I will one day get the whole lot and gorge myself.
Love them both, but prefer Casino. Both equally masterful in terms of film making but I find Casino that bit more entertaining.
I wouldn't argue with someone over their preference either way though.
AKPiggott
21-10-2008, 19:16
Casino is to Goodfellas what Carlito's Way is to Scarface, both crime films with many superficial similarities that carry completely different themes.
kitten914
14-11-2008, 00:22
i like both...but goodfellas ranks in the list of movies that i can watch over and over and not get sick of...
Mr Silly
22-11-2008, 22:02
Just had a lazy sunday watching these two films back to back.the first sentence of this thread gives me an idea...
Fast Eddie
01-12-2008, 18:33
Cool thread, just read through it for the first time, enjoyed it when it all got a bit heatedin the middle there. For me Goodfellas just has so much energy, scene after scene after scene that Casino suffers if the two are put side by side, two great films though and Casino can be got for so cheap now on HDDVD that I'll have to get it and give it another watch some time soon.
Adam Thirnis
02-12-2008, 13:27
Goodfellas is clearly superior but Casino is still one of the best films of it's decade.
AKPiggott
02-12-2008, 17:28
Casino's a gorgeous looking film, can't really say that about Goodfellas. Each film's respective visual style suits it perfectly though.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.