Why doesn't Casino get more love?

[blackjack777]

That movie is great all around. Great cast, plot had no holes, sorta a true story. Yet Godfather and Goodfellas get all the love.

Am I missing something?

[esad]

The first 30 minutes or so of the movie are really good, the problem is that soon Sharon Stone starts appearing in scenes and does her "If I yell and scream and act like I'm a nutjob drug-addict I can win an Oscar." It's tedious and over the top and generally brings the whole movie down.

I've always contended that if you got rid of her character it would be a much better movie. Her character is not germane to the story.

[MrWookie]

This is a pretty marginal lounge thread. If someone feels like stepping in and adding lengthier commentary, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll just end up locking this thread.

[Triumph36]

Huh? How is the Sharon Stone character not central to the essence of Samuel Goldstein?

While Stone's overacting (although she is supposed to be coked up and drunk) is grating, isn't Samuel Goldstein's inability to see past Ginger part of his undoing? That he positively enjoyed that he wasn't in control of this one thing - and yet he was?

[diebitter]

Casino is relatively underappreciated I think, and would be better liked if Goodfellas never existed. Goodfellas is the better film, but they are very similar, and therefore comparison is very hard to avoid.

Casino, whilst it has some electric scenes and dialogue, is in many ways a longer, less good version of Goodfellas. There's definite bloat that could have been curtailed or snipped (De Niro's Vegas show thing for example).

Basically it will always be the lesser, younger brother of Goodfellas, and that won't change. It's a shame, as it's a pretty good movie in its own right, but not much to be done about it.

[Triumph36]

Also, the ending of Casino is far better - while both Goodfellas and Casino end with their main characters in relative anonymity, the tone of Deniro's voice, the shots of Ginger's undoing, and the montage of Vegas casinos set to the ending of the St. Matthew Passion - to me it's far more effective than that final shot of Ray Liotta.

Also - Deniro's character gets a measure of contentment, while Henry Hill is utterly unfulfilled.

[orange]

I couldn't stand sharon stone's character, so annoying. I agree with this film being a 'younger' goodfellas, a good movie, just not at the same level IMO.

[blackjack777]

I think Stone's character is very important.

We had Deniro's character, on top of the world. He could do whatever he wanted, yet his weakness was basically this money-grubbing whore.

Plus, without Ginger, there wouldn't have been a place for James Woods (putting in one of his finest performances during his few minutes on screen)

That has been some good input so far, I guess I have to ask why you liked Goodfellas so much. Maybe I am missing something about that movie...

There are two movies I will put down what I am doing to watch if I come across them on TV.
The Shawshank Redeption and Casino.

[youtalkfunny]

If you think Stone's acting was unbearable in this, wait till you try to sit through the DVD commentary!

What hurts this movie more than anything is that it was released almost immediately after GoodFellas. DeNiro, Pesci, Vincent, Scorcese, and Pellegi all jumped directly from GoodFellas to this. It really made it feel like a sequel, even though it was nothing of the sort.

[KSOT]

Lotta unnecessary over the top anti-semitism I thought. Moreso than your average mob movie.

Also Sharon Stone annoyed the hell out of me.