User Reviews (1,697)

Add a Review

  • Needs to be seen to be believed; in one word: perfection. Every frame, every voice-over, every song - it all comes together at the exact right moment to create the perfect film experience. This film makes you really understand and feel what makes the American mafia so compelling; in the eyes of a kid, who was unfortunate enough to grow up in a tough neighborhood, those gangsters are rock stars. Live fast, die young - but when you die, it ain't gonna be of a glamorous suicide or drug overdose - the ending will be brutal, ugly and sad. And it may very well be one of your best friends that will blow your brains out.

    I'll never get tired of watching Goodfellas; the entertainment value of this film is just amazing. It doesn't happen very often that every person involved in the process of making a film is at the peak of his/her game. And rarely do art and entertainment come together the way they did here. Storytelling with impeccable pacing, this is what it's like when a master composer conducts his masterpiece. All hail the king; the most versatile and talented filmmaker of his generation: Martin Scorsese.

    My vote: 10 out of 10

    Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

    Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

    Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

    Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film was released 32 years ago but still looks as good now as it did then. Great seeing the famous heist on the airport given mainstream light as it was a huge crime back all those years ago.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The rise and Fall of Henry Hill. A kid who always wanted to be a gangster and his progression up the criminal ladder to his ultimate downfall with those around him. Great film.
  • whoisfishmooney10 March 2022
    10/10
    Iconic
    One of the most iconic movies of the 90s. So many unforgettable moments in cinema history. Quotable lines throughout also. A fun film on a bit of a negative subject.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster." -- Henry Hill, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1955.

    Gangsters are all around us. Everyone knows it, not everyone wants to accept it. "Goodfellas"--based on true events--explores the lives of gangsters, chronicling the events through the eyes of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), who gets involved with the Mafia at a young age and continues his "career" throughout the film.

    As he gets older, he marries and has children, but still works for the organized crime family, under mob boss Paulie (Paul Sorvino); and he is friends with Jimmy (Robert De Niro), a calm, steady gangster; and Tommy (Joe Pesci), a wild man with serious mental problems.

    Eventually Henry's life goes down the gutter, leading to drug abuse and paranoia, that leads to other unfortunate incidents that will be ruined if I type any more about them.

    "Goodfellas" is one of the best films I have ever seen. It's a tour de force of breathtaking images, witty scriptwriting, superb acting and realistic violence.

    Robert De Niro gives one of his best performances -- ever -- as Jimmy, even if he's not in the film as much as you might be lead to believe from the front cover.

    Joe Pesci is in this movie about as much as De Niro, maybe a bit more or less. But when he's on screen there's no doubting he's on screen--he's very hard to miss. A short, deranged, loud-mouthed man with something wrong in his head. Someone makes an insult toward him and he shoots them, and then laughs. It's quite disturbing. I am a huge fan of Pesci, and I tend to love his characters, but he really makes you feel sick towards his character in "Goodfellas," while at the same time taking a strange liking to him. That just goes to show how good of an actor Pesci is.

    Ray Liotta is perfect as Henry Hill. I can't think of a better actor to play him. He captures a sense of innocence yet at the same time a feeling of violence. I love the scene where he walks over to a man's house with a regular expression on his face. "What do you want, f&*^&?" the man asks. Liotta continues walking, takes out a gun, and starts to continually beat the man in the skull with the butt of his gun. As Henry walks back to his car, his face is disturbing and his expression stays with you for a long, long time.

    Martin Scorsese is a brilliant director and his work here is fabulous; it's been recreated by other directors (namely Paul Thomas Anderson in "Boogie Nights") and there's a reason: it's great stuff. He totally deserved to receive Best Director in 1990, but of course he didn't. (Rumor has it the Academy frowns on Scorsese's use of racial slurs in his work. Oh boo hoo, get over it.)

    The movie is based on the true-crime memoirs of the real-life Henry Hill, whose novel with Nicholas Pileggi -- "Wiseguys" -- was adapted into a screenplay by Pileggi and Scorsese. The book itself was fantastic and insightful; the screenplay is even better. The dialogue is incredible.

    Anyway, "Goodfellas" has to be one of the best films I've ever seen--a true modern classic that will be remembered for what it is: One of the greatest tales told on screen. It's an offer you can't refuse!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After you see this movie, all other mobster movies you see or ever have seen will seem like garbage. They and their cast of characters will all appear cartoonish in comparison. Of course, this is a movie about the mafia from the working man/gangster point of view, where "The Godfather" was a mafia movie filmed from the viewpoint of the executive suite, so there really is no valid comparison there. "Goodfellas" really does seem ahead of its time when you realize that the only artistic work about the mafia that compares to it in quality is the HBO series "The Sopranos", which debuted nine years after this movie was made.

    "Goodfellas" tells the real-life story of mobster Henry Hill, and it is largely true, although there are individual scenes that are out of sequence and others that were added for dramatic effect, such as Karen Hill flushing the cocaine down the toilet during the drug bust. Also, Tommy, the character that Joe Pesci played and the part for which he won an Oscar, was actually a composite of two separate gangsters. Other details are omitted completely, probably because they would have spun the movie off in too many different directions. For example, crime boss "Big Paulie" actually was having an affair with Henry Hill's wife, Karen. When Tommy tried to rape her and Paulie found out, that was when he alerted the Gambinos to the fact that Tommy had killed their missing crew member, "made man" Billy Batts, nine years earlier. This is the true reason that it took so long for Tommy to be killed over that incident. Thus, masterful direction of the story by Martin Scorsese in what was probably his finest film is why the audience has a more cohesive view of the mobsters portrayed in this movie than if we had been told every last detail.

    What really makes this movie great is all of the personal details that enable you to see these mobsters living a largely suburban life, concerned about kids' birthday parties and getting the sauce just right for dinner, and all the while completely immersed in a completely amoral lifestyle in which murder and bribes solve everything- a lifestyle to which they would never voluntarily choose an alternative.
  • orangeblackwhite18 March 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    Great look into the Italian American culture and crime lifestyle of America. The filmmakers don't try and make the lifestyle look appealing but certain aspects actually do look good apart from hanging dead in a frozen meat van.
  • It is hard to describe the brilliance that is Goodfellas. As good as Raging Bull and Taxi Driver are, I think Goodfellas is Martin Scorsese's best film and is a textbook example of a great director at the peak of his talents. The film crackles with raw energy and enthusiasm, the film is superbly directed and the final sequence is nothing short of stunning. The script is also excellent with memorable quotes, the story is never less than compelling and the pop and rock soundtrack is winning. The cinematography and detail is immaculate, and the ensemble cast is one of film's finest. Joe Pesci won an Oscar for his performance, and as good as he was, he is perfectly matched by Robert DeNiro and Ray Liotta. All in all, it is a brilliant film and an instant classic no matter what time, day, week or year. 10/10 Bethany Cox
  • mhasheider6 November 2004
    If there was one word that I could use to describe Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas": it'd be priceless.

    A surreal and deeply fascinating take on life of Henry Hill who was involved in the Mob for three decades and his rise throughout the time span (and Nicholas Pileggi's book "Wiseguy").

    There isn't a single moment in the movie where it doesn't miss a beat, you could only tell by the atmosphere of the time period and it seems so real.

    The performances in this film simply make it even more memorable and how the characters are portrayed here especially by Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), and Paul Sorvino are believable and easy to understand that they were a family, very close and tightly knit to the core. Also, how director Martin Scorsese lets the movie pace itself and keeps the viewer off guard in what happens deserves a lot of credit.
  • Trouble with goodfellas is it sets the bar so high for mafia organised crime style movie. Outside of godfather and scarface this is the holy grail in its genre.
  • Amazing is the one and only word to say for this film. I have always thought that Goodfellas was one of the greatest films ever made and set a landmark in the 90's or even in movie history. I bought Goodfellas last week and I got to watch the film a couple days ago. I really just couldn't lay my eyes off the film and everything about it was just simply worth watching. The acting was excellent, Ray Liotta, Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Lorraine Bracco, and other actors did great and almost all of the characters they portrayed were 100% accurate. The camera-work also was brilliant and Martin Scorsese does a beautiful job by putting excellent camera shots in his films and I give him high credit for that. The soundtrack too is one of the best soundtracks ever made and the song "Layla," put chills down my spine of how great this song fitted the film. Overall, Martin Scorsese made his best film in my opinion and him and Nicholas Pileggi made an excellent and sharp script that made this, the greatest mob film still today.

    Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10!! **** A+
  • "GoodFellas" may be the most important film of the 1990s in the fact that its incredible success led to some of the other great movies of the decade. Films like "The Silence of the Lambs", "The Crying Game", "Pulp Fiction", "The Usual Suspects", "Fargo", and "L.A. Confidential" would have likely never been made as well as they were without the influence of Scorsese's "GoodFellas". The film is an intense study of a Mafia family over a 30-year stretch. Ray Liotta plays the half-Irish, half-Sicilian kid from Brooklyn whose only dream is to be a gangster. Although Liotta's story is at the heart of "GoodFellas", it is the supporting cast that is the film's calling card. Robert DeNiro gives one of his greatest performances, Paul Sorvino is quietly effective, and Lorraine Bracco (in an Oscar-nominated role) does the best work of her career. However, it is Joe Pesci (in his well-deserved Oscar-winning turn) who steals every scene as the one who does the "dirty work". This is probably the definitive film in a decade that produced many film-noir styled classics. 5 stars out of 5.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have nothing against gangster films and I love Deniro, and Liotta and Pesci...in moderation...The Godfather were brilliant films and I finally made my way around to seeing the infamously talked about 'Goodfellas.' I don't get it. I'll take the heat from any fans and I know there are scores of them...Goodfellas was average at best and simply a trashy look at a mobster from childhood to his end in the mob with some decent but over the top performance, brutally gratuitous language and violence. I suppose in some circles that equivalents to a great film but I need far more. I mean even the story has little depth to it and it's more or less an extended episode of The Sopranos without the character depth. I suppose after having the film hyped for years and hearing about the 'classic' I had high expectations but for me it was run of the mill, annoyingly loud and abrasive but with some good direction. Scorsese knows how to make an epic from beginning to end starting the film in the 50's and 60's and taking it all the way to the mid 80's is a challenge and he does it flawlessly. The gritty underworld, the dark lighting, the facial expressions all very good but put to a pointless story and sub par characters unfortunately.

    I finally know now why Ray Liotta is still around and still gets parts because I always found him a little obnoxious in roles and I never realized he single handedly headlined Goodfellas and is great at it. His character might be the only one in the film given any depth considering he is the narrator and focus of the film. Disgustingly Liotta got no nomination that year which is absurd because if this film deserved anything (which I don't think it did) Liotta's role was it. Robert Deniro commonly gets credit for the film as being the headliner which is also a bit absurd. He might be the big name for the film but his role was small. He didn't make a significant part in the film until a good hour into it and his role was small but he still certainly brought his Deniro class and style to the ensemble. I think they would have done better to focus more on his character and his relationship with Liotta's character. They had good chemistry but just when you wanted to see more...they moved on to something else. Joe Pesci was over the top insane, downright disturbed Tommy Devito. His performance in this film is legendary "Oh you think I'm a clown?" but to be perfectly honest he was ridiculous. His performance wasn't sincere or believable and he was downright annoying. He was loud and abrasive and his barrage of gratuitous language actually made the film less watchable and I am not against the use of four letter words in film but his was too much. Lorraine Bracco was quite good in her pre-Soprano role as Liotta's wife Karen who sticks with him through pretty much everything and has some powerfully emotional swings throughout the film. Paul Sorvino is good as the head of the mob family, Paulie, but he doesn't make an impact. You don't really believe anyone would respect him. He's quiet and laid back and basically hiding throughout most of the film. At least with Brando's Godfather he was an image, an icon, something you just were in awe of. The cast all work well together but their characters are so thinly written you just don't give a damn about a single one of them except maybe a little for Liotta's Jimmy Conway.

    I get that I'm in a severe minority speaking this way about this film and that director Martin Scorsese is like a god to some but I just didn't seem the talent in this film. Scorsese showed talent in The Departed and the cast was a million times better than Goodfellas and deserved all of it's acclaim but I personally think Goodfellas is more of a non-thinking man's mob movie where bloody brutal kills and 1000 times hearing the 'F' word would prompt a dull chuckle as though the audience were 10. No I am not trying to insult anyone I was just severely disappointed by this film after having expected a brilliant classic which I will say hands down is not the case. I suppose if you like the crime genre or moreso the gangster drama than you must see Goodfellas anyways but I can promise you there is FAR better out there than this average, poorly written film. 6/10
  • Chalk me up as another reviewer who found this movie to be vastly overrated. My wife and I saw it a couple nights ago, for the first time, and it just pales in comparison to cinematic triumphs such as The Godfather movies or The Sopranos.

    As much as anything else, there are no likable characters. Part of the reason you could keep turning in to The Sopranos is that you could genuinely like and identify with the principals, despite their brutality and crimes. Here, you can't. None of the principals have any displayed virtues: at best, they're shallow and two-dimensional.

    Yes, the highly lauded soundtrack has many tunes. But if you're going to use the hoary old tactic of advancing pop tunes down the years to denote the march of time, could you not be so flamingly anachronistic as all of that? They were playing 40s tunes in the doo-wop era, 50s doo-wop post-British Invasion, 60s psychedelic pop in the 70s, and early Eric Clapton in the disco era. Get the freaking DATES right.

    Speaking of anachronisms, the film's jammed with them, and while it's superficially a glittering, gritty portrait of the wiseguy life and the wiseguy era, the goofs just overload. Cars too late for the year. Phones too late for the year. Livery too late for the year. Did Scorsese bother at all with accuracy and continuity, or did they just say "Eh, get an old looking car out there." It pains me to read about how exacting and painstaking DeNiro was to get every aspect of Jimmy's personality true to life, exactly how the real Jimmy Burke did, in the middle of a blizzard of anachronisms.

    Most damning, there's just no dramatic tension. There's little by way of plot, little by way of suspense. The actors did good jobs with the material and direction they were given, but that's not remotely enough to sustain this seriously overrated flick.

    5/10.
  • My goodness. If you ain't seen, and much worse, don't care for this movie... I don't wanna associate w you. 30 years later it's still considered possibly the best gangster film of all time. Watch.
  • levelbigfan7 April 2022
    This was the biggest and best scorsese movie of his long and great career.everything is perfect about this film absolute proper banger.love it so much.
  • itssamebloke13 April 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    Crime does not pay is the moral of the story. Even with all the near glamourising that this film shows the truth still rings true and they all get there comeuppance in the end.
  • This film gets you by the balls and you better strap yourself in for a thrill ride in mafia culture Italian style. 10 out of 10 rating from me full marks movie.
  • thomashamps13 September 2000
    This is the gangster film at its finest. Scorsese is on top form as are Pesci and De Niro. Liotta has never bettered the performance he gives here. The film starts as it means to go on - violent, full of profanity, fast paced and very stylish. The story follows Liotta's character from boy to man as he climbs his way up through the ranks of organised crime. We see all the highs and lows of his life and meet a host of very believable and very undesirable characters along the way. It's a film full of memorable scenes whilst remaining much more than the sum of its individual parts at the same time. This is what all movies should be like. It draws you in and won't let you out of its grasp at any point. When it finishes you feel exhausted and exhilarated at the same time. If ever the word 'masterpiece' was meant to be used, it was for this film.
  • Scorcese & Pileggi's masterpiece on the life of Henry Hill as a Brooklyn NY mob wise-guy.

    As much as the true events of Henry's life have more than likely been dramatised and glamourised to a certain extent, the essence of this film IMO is that it is still a brilliantly damning portrayal of the characters and lifestyle of mobsters.

    The sham of the mafiosi is exposed - preaching loyalty, respect & principles - but when it comes down to it they are just two-bit criminals that'll stab each other in the back for money or power over others. Each of them has an inflated sense of self-worth and stature that comes with being a "wiseguy", breeding with it paranoia that others are not giving them the respect they deserve.

    An example is De Niro's portrayal of Jimmy Conway. His outward persona is that of a calm and reasonable nature. But really he is a paranoid killer who at the drop of a hat would kill even his closest associates for money. I use associates rather than friends, as their relationships are of tolerance rather than kinship. Distrust, hate and jealousy through the forced smiles.

    Interesting that given this, certain people envy their life-style and would have loved to have been a wiseguy. I personally couldn't think of anything worse that being tied for life with having to keep the likes of Tommy company, but whatever rocks your boat. Some people have actually paid to see The Dukes of Hazzard film, so I shouldn't be surprised.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having heard lots about this film and many people describe this as one of the greatest films ever, I went in with high hopes. Two and a half hours later, I would say although I enjoyed it, I was expecting more. I guess this film, much like Martin Scorsese's also largely successful Wolf of Wall Street, just felt too linear. Slickly filmed, with a variety of film techniques such as the freeze-frames and narration. A wonderful cast full of amazing performances, most of all by Joe Pesci playing Tommy DeVitto. Incredible. Despite all this, it still felt like something was missing. Understandably this and WoWS are both based on true stories so they aren't blessed with the capability to add the twists and turns of a fictitious story, but it just felt that the movie went on, and on, until eventually it was over; without really too much of significance happening. We knew there would be shootings and deaths, this is a gangster film afterall, but any problem encountered was dealt with so easily that it no longer seemed a problem to begin with. Even in the final sequences where the main character had such a big decision to make, turning on his lifelong friends, somehow I barely felt anything. Perhaps another director could have squeezed more emotion out of those scenes and then, for me, this could be further up there, with the greatest films of all time that many have described this as. Nevertheless, 8/10 for me, a magnificent film on the surface but seriously lacking any depth.
  • goodgearthis13 April 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    Crazy to see Ray liotta 8 miles high and gangster tripping by the end of the film as his fall from grace is complete from lovable rogue in the 50s to paranoid drug fiend by the 80s.
  • The movie that dispelled the romantic myths about La Cosa Nostra and showed it as it really was. "The Godfather" for the 90's minus the silly notions of love, honor, and family. Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) is a half-Irish, half-Italian who rises to prominence in Paul Cicero's (Paul Sorvino) Lucchese Crime Family along with Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci). This is his story of hi-jacking, stealing, cheating, killing and finally drug dealing. He makes no excuses about what he does. Simply put he is just doing business and trying to survive on the mean streets of New York City. He explains the trials and tribulations of being a mobster and what it's like to have to do these things and live with the consequences. Cicero, an aging old-time underboss, heads a dangerous and powerful organization that enjoys free reign over the neighborhood in which Hill lives and recruits him when he is only a kid to work for them and learn to "score" more specifically, the art of committing crime. Hill quickly hooks up with veteran criminal Jimmy "The Gent" and his protege Tommy to hi-jack trucks from the Idlewild Airport. This makes these three rich and respected in the underworld but there is a new game in town. Narcotics. They quickly undertake this highly profitable business even though they know it is against the expressed rules of Paulie. This combined with another serious rule violation and the score of a lifetime sets them up for their own possible demise. Lorraine Bracco co-stars as Henry's wife. A marvelous true life story of one of the most violent and profitable street crews in the history of the American Mafia. The best movie of 1990.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Goodfellas is a technically impressive film and interesting to review largely because of the huge following it has amongst film critics and Martin Scorsese fanatics alike, most of whom reverentially believe it is his best work…and they may be correct.

    The story based on a novel by Nicholas Pileggi chronicles the rise through the ranks of the Mafia of Irish-Sicilian Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), who has always wanted to be a gangster since he was a kid, and finds his wish granted. We follow him from a rambunctious teen to his first arrest, his marriage to Jewish wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco) through to their fall into drugs, and finally as an informer prior to entry into the Witness Protection Program.

    The film has a dry sense of humor and is technically and visually amazing. Scorsese loves the mobster milieu and is obviously working in his element here with a nicely picked cast. The attention to detail, the camera work, the costumes, the choice of music is all well thought out to the most intimate minutiae. The film is a fairly fascinating peek at life inside the Mafia. Scorsese allows events to unfold believably and the moments near the end where Henry and Karen become increasingly paranoid that they are under surveillance, complete with jittery, over bright intense camera work that heightens their unease, is arguably some of Scorsese's best work.

    The acting is fairly solid. Liotta manages to hold things together as the focal character and he gets nice support from Bracco. DeNiro manages a dignified turn as Liotta's mentor and friend. Joe Pesci won the Oscar as the psychotic killer Tommy DeVito. He is utilized well enough here to overlook the fact that it is basically the same performance he gives in everything else.

    Yet as amazing as the film is, it still has its drawbacks that prevent it from becoming the classic that many of its admirers would have you believe. As fascinating as Goodfellas is, I actually find Scorsese's similarly themed subsequent work Casino just as impressive technically, yet far more interesting in that it tells its tale using the backdrop of the formation of gambling mecca Las Vegas. I realize that I am in the minority with that view, but there it is.

    Yet most notable of all is that Goodfellas seems utterly incapable of connecting on an emotional level with the viewer. The superior Godfather films featured similar themes and focused on characters capable of shocking acts of violence, yet managed to connect on an emotional level so that we had some concern for the players. By contrast, at the end of Goodfellas, as brilliant as I thought some of the direction and technical aspects were, I found that I did not give a damn what happened to any of the characters on screen, including Henry and Karen. I was completely indifferent to whether they lived, died, escaped, etc. And this issue makes for a somewhat empty viewing experience.

    1990 was a very interesting film year. Coppola released his last Godfather film that year. Although it got an Oscar nod, critics largely overlooked it in favor of Goodfellas due to the fact that it is not on the same level as its predecessors. There is no question Godfather III is a flawed film, but it is also more emotionally rich than Goodfellas and any one of its flaws is more interesting to discuss at length than any of Goodfellas successes. Conversely, critics and Scorsese fans have spilled gallons of ink over the "injustice" of Dances With Wolves winning the Best Picture over Goodfellas, but it is not hard to see why it did. DWW in its own right is just as technically impressive as Goodfellas (maybe even more so considering its director was an amateur with a passionate vision), but DWW connects emotionally with the viewer in a far more powerful way than Goodfellas ever does. At the end of DWW and Godfather III, I had to know what happened with those characters. At the end of Goodfellas, not so much.

    What Scorsese has achieved is certainly noteworthy and makes for a very good, solid gangster film, but most definitely not a masterpiece. It is slick, flashy and technically well done (sometimes even brilliant), but its inability to make me give a damn about any of its characters is a huge stumbling block.
  • FilmSnobby25 November 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Overrated in 1990, *Goodfellas* has grown even more overrated with the passage of 15 years. It's based on the -- I daresay -- untrustworthy recollections of a half-Irish, half-Sicilian mobster-turned-informant who recently, I am reliably informed, appears as an addled, half-witted guest on "The Howard Stern Show". The narrative arc, if one can accurately term it that, spans 30 years, roughly from 1950 to 1980. This, of course, gives Martin Scorsese every incentive to soak the background with dozens of pop-culture tunes ranging from Bobby Vinton to Derek and the Dominoes. His use of the last 3 lilting minutes of "Layla" as some sort of ironic counterpoint in the extended montage that reveals the corpses of a dozen gruesomely executed mobsters in various places across New York City only underscores his utterly conventional taste in music. One wonders whether Scorsese would've been happier as a Top 40 deejay instead of a filmmaker.

    His conventionality -- a surprising development, given his success with such Seventies classics as *Mean Streets* and *Taxi Driver*, both infused with his uniquely individual aesthetic -- extends beyond the soundtrack to the actual movie itself. Lovers of this movie will doubtless be distressed to learn that the various stylistic techniques Scorsese uses here -- whip-pans, sudden freezes that supposedly add ironic punctuation to the narrative, even the use of pop music as commentary on a montage -- all derive from French (yes, I said French) auteurs from the New Wave school of the Sixties and Seventies. These same lovers of this movie would probably also consider Orson Welles to be an overrated old fuddy-duddy, but that doesn't stop Scorsese from pointlessly laying on at least two sequences of long tracking-shots through complicated spatial arrangements without cuts, the device Welles perfected if not wholly invented. (An even less impressive feat for Scorsese, who benefits from the technological advance of the Steadicam. Welles did it with old-fashioned cameras on dollies and hydraulic cranes.) I believe that all these borrowings betray Scorsese's fundamental, perhaps unconscious, lack of confidence in the power of his story, here.

    For the screenplay, let it be said at once, is poorly constructed. The narrative focuses on trivial events, like a gofer getting shot in the foot during a card game or Paul Sorvino slicing garlic to atomic thinness, and then presents the world-famous Lufthansa heist through hearsay. The movie's main character, Ray Liotta as Henry Hill, hears a news report about the heist while in the shower. One may reasonably ask why we're in the shower with Henry when we should be in the getaway car with Robert De Niro's Jimmy Conway and his henchmen. This, of course, leads one to reasonably ask why we're not watching a movie about Jimmy Conway instead of Henry Hill, the latter being, more often than not, on the periphery of the movie's main events. Having Liotta narrate the exciting stuff for us in voice-over is no substitute. Indeed, the movie is cripplingly dependent on voice-over narration, perhaps because Mr. Hill's own story, in and of itself, isn't interesting enough to really warrant a honest-to-goodness movie in the first place. As the movie drones on with Liotta's loquacious narrator ceaselessly filling in the narrative gaps, one suspiciously wonders -- for example -- why Hill and Conway are NOT whacked for bumping off "made man" Billy Bats, while Joe Pesci's Tommy DOES get whacked. All three men were involved in the killing, yet only Tommy pays the price. Why? Does Conway's and Hill's Irishness serve as a magical force-field? -- I don't get it. Well, I did say at the beginning of this review that Hill was an untrustworthy storyteller. From the evidence, it appears that Hill was quite conversant with his mob boss's cooking techniques (hence all the time wasted on cooking scenes and shots of gorgeously laid-out family feasts) and far less conversant with the important incidents that are the subject of this film. Note too how inconsistently handled Henry's character is throughout the film: one moment he pistol-whips almost to death a sexual predator who messes with his girlfriend, the next he's aghast when some punk kid gets carelessly killed. Hmm -- smells like self-hagiography to me.

    After an overly-edited, chaotic, 30-minute final act in which a sweaty-faced, puffy-eyed Liotta drives around the suburbs, peering up through his windshield at police helicopters, dropping off hot guns, going to the grocery store, zipping back home to make meatballs (AGAIN with the cooking!), and so forth, he gets pinched for good. Under the umbrella of the Witness Protection program, he finally rats out his mob bosses . . . and it occurs to us that this should have been the focus of the film all along, i.e., the FBI's successful eroding of the criminal code using Witness Protection. But Scorsese crams it in during the last five minutes of this 3-hour movie. A little less time in the kitchen and in the shower, and a little more time getting down to business, might have made this movie pretty great.

    As it is, the performers give *Goodfellas* undeniable energy, almost mitigating all its flaws. Fans of good New York actors will forgive this movie everything: Liotta, De Niro, Pesci, Sorvino, and Lorraine Bracco do THEIR job, at least. And perhaps this is why the movie is so well-loved. Colorful characters limned by great performances are entertaining. But, in my judgment, the virtues of verisimilitude can't overcome what amounts to a 3-hour-long non-story.

    3 stars out of 10.
An error has occured. Please try again.