Gangs of New York vs. GoodFellas

I was watching Gangs of New York on AMC last night. Given that both it and GoodFellas are Scorsese movies, I found myself comparing the two. For me, the comparison shows the difference between a good movie (Gangs) and a great one (GoodFellas). While Gangs has a good story and is interesting in its recreation of mid-nineteenth century New York City, there are many moments and lines which don't seem essential or particularly exciting or which could be done differently and be just as good or better. In GoodFellas, however, every second is totally riveting and nothing seems wasted. Every scene and line of dialogue feel like they're telling an essential part of the story, and one feels that if anything were done differently, the movie would be diminished.

My opinion anyway. What are your thoughts?

Goodfella's is just like Scarface.
Both are cinema classics, in 50 years people will still watch them

You said it all right there, Vito! A very long movie, and not a minute wasted, not a line of dialog that doesn't work, not a scene that didn't belong there--and that would diminish the movie if it were removed. Bang-bang action and mordant humor. To be fair, "Gangs" is a different concept--it's more like a stage drama than a street depiction. The tipoff is the deliberate way Scorsese set that fireworks display early on--you know it's going to be stagy.

The only (minor) criticism I would make regarding the dialogue in GoodFellas concerns the scene where Henry, as a kid, meets Jimmy. The voiceover states that this time period was "before Apalachin." Now Mafia buffs know what Apalachin is, so for them there's no problem. But others watching this scene wouldn't know what Henry was talking about. Maybe the meaning of Apalachin could have been clarified in some way. But that's a very minor flaw, not something that significantly diminishes the movie.

He also said, "...and before Crazy Joe started a war..." which was ca. 1960-61.
I think Scorsese was trying to establish that Henry was "with" the Mob even as a teenager. Perhaps lost on a lot of viewers but a bit of authentication.

A much better comparison would be Goodfellas and Casino. Those two movies are basically mirror images of each other.

Another thing that struck me when watching "Gangs" was: I wonder what the American Indians would have to say about Bill the Butcher's fanatical fervor regarding his supposed "nativeness."

Whoops, I resurrected a thread.

Gangs of New York is basically a revenge film. Scorsese crammed too many characters and stories into a single film. Why didn't the writers just take one of the stories from Herbert Asbury's book? No, the film has very little to do with the book only in title, setting, and historical figures which the film takes massive creative license with rather than historical accuracy.

Whereas, Goodfellas is probably the best mafia/mob film ever made. A classic. I love the transformations Henry Hill undergoes through the film especially as a paranoid coked-up dealer.

Goodfellas is a great movie because it created a new sense of the mob movie. Up until that point there was the Godfather which showed them as men of honor. Goodfellas shows the mafia soldiers as what they really are. I was disappointed in gangs considering it was Scorsese's dream project. It wasn't bad it just wasn't that great. It felt more like a western movie. Supposedly Scorsese said that the original idea was more violence and more historical facts. Even though the characters are based on real characters they just made it into a revenge movie.

I rated both movies on Imdb. Goodfellas easily got a 10 out of 10, Gangs of New York got a 7 out of 10.

Goodfellas has a way more interesting cast of characters. Even if you took Henry Hill out of it, the movie would still be watchable. But with Gangs of NY the whole movie is pretty much Bill the Butcher. When he's not on screen the movie is a snooze.

Goodfellas way better

goodfellas imo the best gangster pic of all time

David Spade on SNL: "Casino...ca-seen it....but I liked it better the first time I saw it...when it was called 'Goodfellas'"

Although I'm probably in the minority thinking that Casino was even better than Goodfellas, Goodfellas is obviously a better movie than Gangs of New York.

Not sure if it was better than Goodfellas. But Casino is definitely a great movie. Really underrated.

casino = great

goodfellas = classic

goodfellas wasn't as fabricated as casino seemed to be. i researched both stories and the stuff in goodfellas lines up alot better than it did in casino.

But imo that doesn't have to make it a lesser movie.

For instance, a movie like Lawrence of Arabia which is meant to be a biography, is also fabricated for a large part. However, it is still considered one of the greatest films of all time.

People tend to forget that the main purpose of a film is 'entertaining'. If you want to know all the facts, you should read a book.

Interesting. I actually (with all due respect to expressed opinions) thought that Gangs of New York sucked, and, if it weren't a Scorcese production, might've been more widely derided as such.

GONY seemed to me more interested in cinematography than story; story must always come first. Daniel Day Lewis's character struck me as shallow; sort of a live action Gargamel (of "Smurfs" fame).

IT was also extremely inaccurate historically. It's really more about the civil war era draft riots than a 'gangster' movie. It shouldn't be seen as something to compare to Goodfellas or Casino.

i see where your coming from i def do, believe me i love casino! just that i like goodfellas better. goodfellas was fabricated in alot of ways as well. perhaps pilegi's excelent writing in wiseguy that made goodfellas do it more for me. casino was also great by pilegi. i dont know i think im rambling here. but you are def right sonny movies are meant to be entertaining. but for me there's 2 kinds of entertaining movies like "to kill the irishman" and donnie brasco, then there's goodfellas and casino that just take you along for the ride and you never get tired of no matter how many times you've seen them.

good fellas,a far better movie,with a much better cast,but different types of movie.i dont think you can compare the two films,really!!!!!!!!!1

Goodfellas for sure, but i dont understand how people love Scarface? I do like the classic one from the 30s, but not with Pacino in it. It mixes coke dealers, gang members with organized mafia which aint good.