Critics’ reviews

GoodFellas (1990)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 86: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of GoodFellas

86
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics are strongly positive about GoodFellas, with praise centred on Scorsese’s energetic direction and the film’s close attention to the everyday workings of organised crime. The reviews repeatedly find that its humour, violence and mundane detail strip away gangster glamour without sacrificing pace or fascination. Ensemble performances draw particular approval, while Ray Liotta’s performance and voice-over, the tracking shots and the documentary-like observation receive specific praise.

The spread is wide, though the reservations come chiefly from one substantial dissent rather than a broadly divided response. Variety finds the film fascinating but overlong and dramatically unsatisfying, arguing that the lead performance is opaque and that the second half’s accumulating depravity becomes numbing. Sight and Sound offers narrower reservations about the wife’s narration and the compression of the source material. The main disagreement concerns whether the relentless depiction of mob life retains its dramatic force throughout.

The Independent
19 January 2017 · ★★★★★
100

The critic calls it one of Scorsese’s greatest films that has not aged at all. They highlight its realistic, down-to-earth portrayal of the everyday banality of gangster life rather than glamorous excess, along with Ray Liotta’s standout performance and voice-over.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
19 September 1990 · Sheila Benson
95*

Scorsese works at the peak of his power in this pure, hot, unquestioned virtuosity that mixes horrors with mordant humor and flows with exuberance. It is Raging Bull squared, with every detail nailed and new moves shown in a de-mythologized portrait of wiseguys.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Adam Smith
90*

The essay celebrates Scorsese’s technical mastery and the film’s documentary-like realism in depicting mob life. It singles out memorable improvised scenes, the Steadicam tracking shot, and the way the story undercuts the gangsters’ swagger by showing their pathetic downfall.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
7 September 1990 · Kirk Honeycutt
90*

The critic hails Scorsese's sociological examination of the American gangster subculture, calling it a masterly achievement in intense observation that is complex, volatile, ironic and disquieting. He singles out the spectacular ensemble acting and the film's fast-paced, often funny yet intense exploration of mob life and its consequences.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
19 September 1990 · Vincent Canby
90*

The film is a breathless and brilliant adaptation that offers the most politically serious and most evilly entertaining look yet at organized crime. It ranks alongside Scorsese's classics like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, thanks to its ensemble performances and clear-eyed view of Mafia life.

Read the full review →
Variety
10 September 1990 · Joseph McBride
50*

The film is simultaneously fascinating and repellent as an inside look at Mafia life but is dramatically unsatisfying and overlong, with an opaque lead performance that undercuts its intent. The first half excels in exploring the milieu, but the second half piles on numbing depravity without sufficient dramatic weight.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· Tom Milne

The critic praises the film as the most realistic appraisal to date of organised crime and how it operates, viewing the Mafia from the bottom up through rank-and-file members focused on making money. Scorsese's direction, location shooting and performances are highlighted as superbly muscular and fine, with only minor reservations about the use of the wife's narration and necessary truncation of the source material.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate