بيلي باثجيت

This film can't make up its mind what it wants to be. Ostensibly it's about the 1930s gangster Dutch Shultz. However, the story predominantly rotates around the romance between Kidman and Deans characters. Yet it doesn't really sufficiently deal with either the romance or the life of Schultz. Neither does Schultz or the romance act as a secondary story to the other. So the movie loses out by not knowing what it is.

Spoilers herein. Drudging through this makes us feel like we're wearing concrete shoes. Everything is lifeless, moving with heavy obvious thuds. Each point is pounded. Each character is unable to move. Hoffman is a waste -- and not just here. The real tragedy is Kidman. I do not know whether she learned to act later, or whether no director took her seriously. But something is amiss here as she is really bad. Class actresses in inept vehicles still shine through -- often they find some space invisible to the director and play with that. But there is nothing apparent from Kidman here. Either she really was kidnapped by moviemaking thugs, or she really was then just a pretty face with nothing else at all.

Billy Bathgate is really good gangster movie, but something is missing, Dustin is usual as ever, great Loren Dean performance, Nicole Kidman as marvelous in breathtaking scenes and surprisingly the unforgettable our hero in the past in Mission Impossible series Steven Hill on a very respectable and fine acting, almost unnoticed if didn't l used to read the opening credits, more helping the Lucky guy along the picture like a father, based in real facts on the thirties. Resume: First watch: 1996 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.25

Some review comments about it having an "abrupt ending" were peculiar since the ending was HISTORICAL. The chop house shooting happened. The characters could have been drawn better, much better, especially regarding motivations. Perhaps this is why people were left unsatisfied at the ending; they didn't care about the characters. A major reason for that is the lead title character was completely forgettable. Yes, Nicole Kidman struts around stark naked; you'll see more of her here than in "Eyes Wide Shut". (She's really a little too thin). If you stumble across the movie check it out; better yet, read the book.

This film had some problems, but is still underrated. Hoffman is intense and frightening as Dutch Schultz and I can't believe he wasn't nominated for this. The lead kid, Loren Dean, simply has no acting talent whatsoever. Nicole Kidman is fetching as the spoiled, rich girl and Steven Hill is excellent. Robert Benton is a wonderful filmmaker and I rate this a 7 out of 10. The novel is better than this, but there are wonderful scenes and even Bruce Willis is believable for the only time other than Pulp Fiction. I can't believe this bombed as it did, but I think in the future people will give a higher rating than they did at the time. One of Hoffman's best performances along with Midnight Cowboy and Straight Time.

The big screen adaptation of E. L. Doctorow's novel shows impressive credentials and handsome production values; so why is the finished film so inert? Is it because the story itself, about a fresh-faced Bronx kid who, during the Depression, learns the hard facts of criminal life from mobster Dutch Schultz (and falls for the boss' girlfriend) is so familiar? Could it be the abrupt, anti-climactic ending to the film's clever hopscotch structure? Or is it because the movie is too much about Billy (played by clean-cut newcomer Loren Dean, a throwback to pre-Touchstone Disney) and not his psychotic mentor? No evidence is visible of the much publicized production problems other than a few scenes where dialogue was obviously overdubbed, but the film still looks as if it were made under duress. A strong supporting cast, and Dustin Hoffman's exciting performance as the vulgar Dutch, are saving graces.