I Know Nobody Agrees With Me, But I Think Casino Is Better Than Goodfellas

Everybody loves Goodfellas, right? In fact, when we ranked Martin Scorsese's best movies, we put it at number one. I mean, how could we not? It's almost universally accepted as Scorsese’s best film. Either that, or Raging Bull, or Taxi Driver. Honestly, it’s a three-way tie amongst those aforementioned movies.

And, I love Goodfellas! It’s a great movie. However…what if I were to tell you that I prefer Casino? Crazy, right? Sure. And if you think I have bad taste in movies, you wouldn’t be the first.

That said, Casino is not a bad movie at all! In fact, most would agree that it’s really good. It’s just not as good as Goodfellas. I have five reasons why I prefer it to one of Scorsese’s most popular films. Here’s why.

It's Rare That We Actually Get To See A Robert De Niro Character Sweat

Based on the nonfiction book, Casino: Love and Honor in Las Vegas, Casino follows Robert De Niro as gambling expert Sam “Ace” Rothstein, a character loosely based on the real-life gangster Frank Rosenthal. He’s hired by the Chicago mob to oversee their casinos and make more money for them.

To protect their interests, the mob sends Sam’s longtime friend, Nicky (Played by Joe Pesci), to “protect” him. Sam is great at his job. In fact, one of my favorite moments in the movie is the gruesome “cheater’s justice” scene with the hammer.

However, Nicky’s a wildcard, and Sam doesn’t quite know how to handle him, especially when it turns out that Nicky is having an affair with his wife (Which I’ll get into later). Now, what I love about all of this is that De Niro is really playing against type. As a Jewish-American gambling handicapper in the film, he’s a bit of an outsider from the primarily Italian Mafia.

He’s tough, as he has to be for his job, but he’s also not Mafia tough. In fact, a lot of times, we get to see De Niro’s character sweat. It’s a big reason why I think this is one of Robert De Niro’s best movies, since I love seeing this actor, who is normally seen as unflappable, actually afraid for his life.

It’s a rarity we don’t get often, and I love seeing it in Casino. A terrifying Robert De Niro? I’ve seen that plenty of times. Just rewatch Cape Fear or most of the movies that he’s been in. But a scared Robert De Niro? Now that’s something we don’t get to see every day.

I Also Prefer Joe Pesci's Performance In Casino Over Goodfellas

One might argue that Joe Pesci is playing the exact same role in Casino that he played in Goodfellas (but lesser), and yeah, I can see that argument. In both performances, Pesci's character is in the Mafia, and in both movies, his character is reckless.

However, what makes me prefer Pesci's character as Nicky in Casino is his relationship to the protagonist, as Nicky and Sam have a history together.

One might say that they're friends, as they are in Goodfellas, but they are also at odds with one another when it comes to business, unlike Goodfellas. In both films, Pesci's character is a liability, but in Casino, that creates most of the tension.

This makes all the difference. And, I especially like how Pesci is at odds with De Niro, and in fact, has a sort of power over him for most of the film, which is different from Goodfellas. In that way, I consider this to be the superior Pesci performance, and that means a lot since he's one of the best parts of Goodfellas.

Sharon Stone's Performance Is So Potent In This film, And We Don't Have Something Like It In Goodfellas

Okay, now I know what you're going to say. What about The Sopranos’ star, Lorraine Bracco? She was excellent in Goodfellas as Henry's scorned wife. And, you know what? You're right! She is excellent in the movie (who can forget Henry waking up with a gun in his face?).

However, I think Sharon Stone’s character in Casino as Sam's wife (and former prostitute and con artist), Ginger, is even more potent and impactful, and mostly since she's not the kind of woman who would point a gun in her husband's face and not use it. No, no. She's the kind of woman who would sleep with her husband’s childhood friend and then ask him to kill her husband.

And yet, it's hard to hate her for it. Going into the marriage, she tells Sam straight out, “You don’t even know me,” and she even tries to talk him out of the proposal, even going so far as to tell him that she’s not in love with him. But, good old Sam pushes it, and for his trouble, he gets a wife who wants him dead.

In a lot of ways, Ginger is just as involved in Sam’s downfall as Pesci’s character (If not more so), and I really like that about her performance. She’s detestable, sure, but all of the characters in Casino are detestable, so she fits right in.

So, as much as I like Lorraine Bracco’s character in Goodfellas, I always view her as more of a victim; a willing victim, sure, but a victim, nonetheless. But Ginger is no victim. If anything, she’s an agent of chaos, and I love that about her.

I Like Casino's Setting Better Than Goodfellas

I like period pieces, especially ones set in the 1960s (Which is one of the reasons why I’m so looking forward to this upcoming Fantastic Four movie), and Goodfellas spans multiple decades, from the ‘60s to the ‘80s. I also like the New York and New Jersey setting. Being from Jersey myself, it’s nice seeing some of that local flavor, as I know all about places like JFK airport, and Upstate New York.

That said, since I’m from this area, movies set in this location, even as period pieces, just don’t do it for me. Like, I don’t find anything exotic or unique about Brooklyn, New York. That’s just where I get my annual steak at Peter Luger.

However, even though I’ve been to Vegas, it’s still a unique setting for me, as I only stayed on the strip and didn’t go out into the desert, which seems terrifying. In fact, the setting itself really feels like its own character in Casino, what with the darkness of the film and all the bright lights. I really love that juxtaposition, and I think it works in making this movie feel even more interesting than Goodfellas.

AS for the setting, and the deaths that occur, Pesci's death in Casino is scarier. His characters die in both movies, but which movie has the more terrifying death scene? Pesci getting whacked in some random room with a fish on the wall, or Pesci being brought to an Illinois cornfield, and being beaten by baseball bats, and then buried alive?

You might say, well, it’s the death itself that is more impactful, but don’t disregard that cornfield. It really leaves an impression on you, as do all of the settings in Casino, which I think are superior to Goodfellas. But–and this is the point that might get me in the most trouble–I have one other reason why I prefer Casino to Goodfellas.

Honestly, As Much As I Love Goodfellas, I Think It's A Tad Bit Overrated

I know everybody’s favorite gangster movie is either The Godfather or Goodfellas, but do you want to know my favorite gangster movie? It’s Scarface.

I only bring that up because I don’t have any allegiance to Goodfellas. In other words, I don’t have any skin in the game. Yeah, I love it, but it’s not my favorite gangster movie. In fact, I actually think it’s a tad bit overrated.

I say this because I often see it on a lot of “Best movies of all time” lists (For example, IMDb users have placed it at number 17 on their list of the Top 250 movies). And, while I love Goodfellas, I wouldn’t put it in my Top 20. Hell, I wouldn't even put it in my Top 50.

So, even though I think Goodfellas is one of Scorsese’s best movies, I wouldn’t put it above films like Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy, or especially Casino. In fact, I wouldn’t even put it above Scorsese’s hidden gem, After Hours. Because while I love Goodfellas, I don’t love love it.

I do love love Casino.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.