jfoobar

IMHO, it was the starry-eyed adoration of many of FG's fans in '94 that made it so overrated more than the film itself, which was light and frothy and unoffensive.

I cannot really disagree with any of your list, actually, which is rare of any list posted in a thread like this. I would say that I liked RotK even less than you.

Re: Casino

The first half of Casino is terrific, by and large. My theory on this is that it was Scorsese's tale of how Las Vegas was in its early, mafia-dominated days that was so fascinating, not specifically Rothstein and Santoro as characters. In the first half of the film, they served as convenient and entertaining tour guides in a story about Vegas. In the second half, they became the story.

I would also assert that Pesci's portrayal in Casino comes across as manufactured and weary, where his character in Goodfellas was much more organic. Compare the scene from GF where he kills the boy versus the pen-stabbing scene from Casino. The first is shocking but entirely believable. The second is silly and gratuitous and, in my eyes, not believable at all.

parrotheads4

Almost everything done by Martin Scorsese.

coli

I totally agree. It's hard to explain but you believe all the actions the main characters take in Goodfellas, whereas in Casino sometimes it feels like they are just trying to shock the audience.

The reason it is so fresh in my mind is Casino has been on Cinemax this month, so this is the first I sat down and watched it in many years. There are some parts I absolutely love, probably cause I am a huge fan of Deniro/Pesci/Scorcese.

I love to see how the whole inside of how a Casino works, where the money goes, how people are monitored, etc. Told in typical Scorcese way with great music, and narration throughout.

Then the movie takes a left turn into the soap opera of Deniro and Sharon Stone. Now don't get me wrong, Stone puts up a 'A' performance next to some heavyweights, but the movie goes on too long as it just loses my interest at 3 hours. But Goodfellas leaves me wanting more at 2 hours and 20 minutes.

I think it was Siskel or Ebert who said, "a great movie can never be too long, and a bad movie can never be too short."

Hokeyboy

"epic fail"

Stay in your chat room, 2001 is on the big screen at the Cosford Cinema this weekend.

Hokeyboy

Training Day -- shit movie that made skinny white guys on the Internet feel like badasses.

Forrest Gump -- mood music for morons.

Magnolia -- absolute back-breaking torture.

Gladiator -- promising first half leads to a passive, unengaging, uninvolving last half. Crowe's character became a lifeless dolt. He did nothing, he only reacted to things happening to him. Who cares, then? BEST PICTURE? Get outta here...

Donnie Darko -- Nowhere NEAR the masterpiece it's held up to be. ANY MOVIE THAT FORMS A COHERENT NARRATIVE IF AND ONLY IF YOU GO TO THE WEBSITE AND READ THE BACKGROUND OF EVERY PROP, BACKGROUND ITEM, SUPPORTING CHARACTER, ETC. HAS ABSOLUTELY FAILED AS A MOVIE.

Yojimbo -- I just went there. I've seen almost every Kurosawa movie ever made, multiple times. Yojimbo is stiff and unegaging. Sanjuro is infinitely superior. Heck, gimme Red Beard or The Idiot over Yojimbo.

Ben Hur -- visually splendid, dramatically inert. Ben Hur is no better than Cleopatra.

Moulin Rouge -- a musical for the ADD generation, for whom a shot that lasts longer that 1.3 seconds instantly makes the film "slow" and "boring". Original songs? Fuck that. Here's embarassing renditions of the shit you already know!!! Get outta here...

I am a little angry tonight.