LogFAQs > #925258141

From what I've read about it, it seems like a fairly typical gangster epic compared to Goodfellas. I'll probably just watch Goodfellas again (only seen it once, back in 2014), and then watch Casino for comparisons. Roger Ebert giving it 4 stars piques my curiosity, but I think he largely enjoyed the portrayal of the brokers at the top. That's pretty cool how Scorsese's gangster flicks go up the crime ladder from Mean Streets to Goodfellas to Casino admittedly, but the subject matter just doesn't interest me much. The average viewer probably identifies with Henry Hill sooner than Ace Rothstein.

Watched Raging Bull for the first time earlier this year to follow on from De Niro's scene-stealing performance in The Godfather Part II. The vibe I got from the film was "yeah, I see how this film is so highly-regarded, and it's truly a great film, but it's not the kind of thing I would usually like to watch". On a scale of 1-10 I'd give it almost right between an 8 and a 9, but slightly closer to the former. It probably came across as a strange experimental effort at the time of release, hence its mixed reception and failure to win Best Picture over Ordinary People (which I've seen a bit of while channel-surfing, seems pretty good even if not Raging Bull good).
---

"Nothing I could do!"
-Darksydephil