Why didn't "Casino" get the recognition "Goodfellas" did? (1 Viewer)

[Dave H]

Okay, I admit it. Casino was basically a "Goodfellas II" in a sense. But, even so, I thought it was ALMOST as good as Goodfellas. (Goodfellas did flow a bit better and had a little better story.). I liked how Casino focused more around Deniro and Peschi. Their acting speaks for itself. And, what about Stone? That was clearly her best performance ever. Of course, there were other good performances in this movie, as well.

However, Casino seemed to be considered a failure by many and not do nearly as good as Goodfellas. It surprises me a bit.

 

[Tom-G]

And, what about Stone? That was clearly her best performance ever

Agreed. Martin Scorsese has a way of bringing out the best in his actors/actresses (one of the reasons I can't wait to see how DiCaprio does in Gangs of New York).

Casino is a great film, but the fact that Scorsese made the masterpiece that is GoodFellas only a few years prior, Casino suffers from a "been-there-done-that" for most people. Almost everytime I speak of Casino with someone, he or she will immediatly say "I didn't like it as much as GoodFellas."

 

[BarryS]

Call me crazy, but I like Casino better. Not that Casino is the better movie, it's just my favorite of the two. I think it takes what was great about Goodfellas and expands on it. Everything from the soundtrack to the acting to the dialog to the cinematography and editing is top-notch. De Niro and Pesci also get juicier roles than Goodfellas. Their characters were far more interesting than Ray Liotta's and Casino focuses on them rather than relegating them to supporting characters. I'd rather watch De Niro or Pesci than Ray Liotta any day. They achieve some of that wonderful chemistry that they had years earlier in Raging Bull.

This movie turned me on to mob movies. From it, I discovered The Godfather, not to mention the work of Martin Scorsese. Derivative it may be, but I love Casino and I'll still call it one of my favorite films.

 

[Paul_D]

I thought what worked in Goodfellas was that the characters of both De Niro and Pesci remain mysterious throughout the film. They're unpredictable because they are supporting characters, and we don't have a running commentary of what's going on in their heads as we do with Liotta's character. Seeing them though Liotta's eyes makes them far more compelling than their respective characters in Casino, whose motivation and thought process is clear, all the time.
Personnally, I thought Casino was very labored. It dragged, and although the 'beginning...good times...bad times...end' structure was well-used before Goodfells it didn't feel anywhere near as cliched as it did in Casino.

 

[Steve Christou]

Stone annoyed the hell out of me in Casino, her character not the actress, I was pissed off with DeNiro's character for not dumping her, he could tell she didn't love him but still wouldn't get rid of her, horrible.
Sharon Stone was great in Casino but I much prefer her in Basic Instinct, as the ultimate femme fatale.
Goodfellas is much better than Casino IMO and prob the best film of the 1990's. Barry Levinson's Bugsy was very good too.

 

[Al B. C]

I think there is way too much voice over. Otherwise, I like this movie just fine.

 

[rhett]

I don't understand why Casino isn't as highly regarded as GoodFellas either. Both are very rich in story and character development, and the editing in both films is fantastic.
Stone's performance was easily her best, and had she been pushed to supporting actress like she should have been, she would have won the Oscar for her role as well.
For me, I prefer knowing the DeNiro and Pesci characters in Casino over their mysterious backgrounds in GoodFellas. I want to watch these characters stubbornly unravel and unseat themselves from success. The personalities of DeNiro's and Pesci's characters in Casino are much more developed than their characters in GoodFellas, and there performances were that much better because of it. When I watched GoodFellas I was frustrated at how underdeveloped DeNiro's character was, it felt more like a glorified cameo.
Overall, it is tough to pick one film over the other, but overall I think I'd go with Casino, because the characters, to me, were more developed and intruiging than those in GoodFellas.

 

[Steve Russell]

There was a series on the history channel recently about true mob stories that were made into films. They discussed both Casino and Goodfellas. They interviewed both Henry Hill from Goodfellas and the guy that Deniro played in Casino(can't remember his real name). Apparently aside from the usual hollywood dramatizations here and there for a more interesting story they were both amazingly close to their real world counterparts.

 

[Dick]

I loved the opening twenty minutes of CASINO, with its insights into the actual process of gambling, collecting and sorting money. After that, Sharon Stone was certainly impressive. I enjoyed seeing John Bloom (Joe Bob Briggs) and Don Rickles in dramatic roles. But, hey, a little Joe Pesci - fine actor though he is - goes a long way after seeing him in essentially the same role in GOODFELLAS. This is all so subjective because we all have opposing opinions, but for me, GOODFELLAS is the quintessential mob film of all time, while CASINO is a wannabe following too closely on the heels of its predecessor.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Simple answer?
Because Casino came second.
Maybe I'm full of beans here, but maybe it's seen by some as 'sticking with a good thing'. (Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci, Mafia Stuff)
Me? I think both movies are excellent, and only one of 'em has Jimmy Woods in it!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I think you nailed it Scott, Casino was just following in the very impressive footsteps of Goodfellas and it robbed it of the originality that it otherwise would have had.
That said though, I really liked Casino, I had the LD but havn't gotten the dvd yet. I sorta had a problem with Joe Pesci in this one though, not a big one, just a little. In that scene at the bar where he stabs the guy with the pen near the beginning of the movie, I thought to myself "O.k., he's trying TOO hard to pull off another Tommy Devito here." He improved though as the film went on.

 

[Ryan Peter]

The character Pesci plays in Casino is what the character he played in Goodfellas dreamed of being. He has a made man and could do whatever he wanted.

 

[Eric Bass]

For me I think Goodfellas has the more compelling story. Casino is the story of these high up mobsters running casinos or thug rings. By contrast Goodfellas is primarily the story of an ordinary guy turned mobster, relatively low level, dealing with 'the life' and a family at the same time. Easier to identify with than the characters in Casino who have more in common with rich business owners than myself.

 

[Shawn C]

Stone annoyed the hell out of me in Casino, her character not the actress, I was pissed off with DeNiro's character for not dumping her, he could tell she didn't love him but still wouldn't get rid of her, horrible.

Yep, but I think that is exactly how Scorcese WANTED you to feel about those characters. It's good that you got annoyed.

 

[Steve Christou]

Yep, but I think that is exactly how Scorcese WANTED you to feel about those characters. It's good that you got annoyed.

Hey it wasn't good that I got annoyed, damn that Scorsese, and I was in such a good mood before the film started, I was biting my fist all the way thru the film, I had to watch Scarface afterwards just to recover...
"Why don't joo try stickin' jo head up jour ass -- see if it fits"
"Manolo, shoot dat pis o' chit"
aaah what a flick..
ps. Hey whats keeping that Scarface Appreciation Thread?

 

[Travis D]

The "because it came second" answer is the best and truest of all the speculation here. First of all, I saw Casino first since I'm only 17 and enjoyed it exhuberantly. I then rented Goodfellas, and you know what, I found Casino to be the better film. Whatever Goodfellas did, it seemed that Casino did it better. Goodfellas may have had the advantage of being released first, but if you take that variable out, like in my situation, you'll see that Casino built upon what was given in Goodfellas to create something more well-rounded and complete. Not to mention simply awe-inspiring performances from DeNiro, Pesci, and Stone. This movie is what got me to love DeNiro. Just love him.

Of course this is all my opinion, take that as you will.

 

[Dean Kousoulas]

As you can tell, Casino is my favorite movie of all time. Robert Denro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone...such great performances by all three. Every time I watch the film, I love it a little more then I did the last time I viewed it.

As for many people calling it a "Goodfellas 2", I never compare 2 movies unless the latter is a sequel. Goodfellas is a great, great film, but I simply think Casino is better.

Dean

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Casino is certainly a fine film. As a very big Scorsese fan, however, I definitely agree with the "been there, done that" statements as to why this film was not received better than it was.
That being said, I still think that Goodfellas is the better movie, and I am 98% sure that I would feel that way even if Casino had come first.
How is that for inconsistent reasoning?

 

[Mike Broadman]

The problem with a director like Scorsese is that his work is so great and unique that people always expect him to one-up himself and constantly do something brilliant and original all the time. IMO, that is unfair. Not everything has to be so radically different.

How many Hitchcock films are similar to each other? Who cares?

Scorsese already has enough varied work to be considered a master: Kundun, Age of Innocence, King of Comedy, and all the gangster movies. It just so happens that his specialty is the gangster stuff. And, yeah, two of them have the Deniro / Pesci stuff. But to me, Casino and Goodfellas are different enough to be looked at seperately, especially with the added dynamic of Sharon Stone.

Goodfellas has a special place in my heart as one of my top (whatever number) movies, but Casino is great, too.

 

[AndyW]

I love both films.