"Goodfellas" is just "Casino 1"

Rating: 10/10 (21 January 1999)

Up until now, most of the criticism I've heard from people is that "Casino" is "Goodfellas 2" or that Scorsese's done the "gangsters with voice-overs and the classic rock soundtrack" thing before.
To that I say, "So what?" It worked brilliantly before. But, I'll even go so far as to say that it works better now.
Ways in which "Casino" is better than "Goodfellas":
1) The setting is better. 2) The story is deeper and more complex. 3) The characters are much better developed. 4) DeNiro is brilliant in a bigger role. 5) Pesci is great in a much better role. (His character isn't so 1-dimensional.) 6) Sharon Stone is great in her best performance. 7) James Woods is excellent in a supporting role.
In addition, the movie contains one scene which I consider to be one of the greatest ever. It was the scene late in the movie in which Pesci's and DeNiro's characters meet to air out their differences. Two great actors meet with the desert as a backdrop in the movie's key scene.
"Let's get one thing straight. I'm what matters out here, not you and your f**king casino, or your f**king TV show." ...
The story is very well-told, even if it's a little longer than it needs to be. But, the scenes where Sharon Stone and James Woods are fighting with De Niro (the obvious places for substantial edits) are such compelling acting/drama that I wouldn't want the movie to be any shorter.
"Goodfellas" falls just shy of "Casino" in so many ways. Had "Goodfellas" been made later, not only would it be considered "Casino 2" but it would not even be held in as high regard as "Casino" is now.
Scorsese improved upon what was a great movie-making formula.