Billy Bathgate

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.

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.

Through a chance meeting in the street, our hero Billy Bathgate (Loren Dean) encounters and impresses the notorious 1930's gangster and bootlegger Dutch Schultz and even becomes his protégé.

Gangster films, like westerns, have so many cinematic plus points built in that making a totally duff one is pretty hard. This is a very professional piece of work, but hardly takes the genre to another level. One of the games you can play while watching is ticking of the clichés one-by-one.

(For the record the lead's poor mother - she works in a laundry - doesn't reject his "dirty" money, which I thought was compulsory in this type of movie, but most other must-haves are observed: The "surprise" summary execution and the chase through the period streets - to name but two - are both here!)

Dustin Hoffman is surpassingly good as a gangster who treats other people as collectable/disposable items. While he has a cold streak, you feel that only people that cross him are going to get the chop (one of whom is Bruce Willis - who looks like he took a small part to wear the clothes).

More ambiguous is his love (or is she?) interest Nicole Kidman who he seems to enjoy mentally torturing. I couldn't get a clear grip on her mentality or why she goes along with it all - not even for her own security reasons.

Dean is a good looking young actor who looks about ripe for corruption, but the role doesn't require him to be cool or knowledgeable merely look on as a witness, so that we can too. His attraction for Kidman, who seems to like casually undressing in public, is natural given that he is supposed to be a wide-eyed virgin.

Naturally hanging around with gangsters isn't a safe sport and soon Billy is in hot water that he has to think himself out of, but I think you can safely guess that what the final outcome will be.

Billy Bathgate is the work of solid pros from the script to the scenery (very believable 1930's NY), but the piece never reaches the heights and for long periods jogs along like a marathon runner conserving energy.

While delivering no fireworks or giving you anything new it gets you through to the end without being bored. Nevertheless it is hardly the type of film you would want to own or even sit through twice.

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.