Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

tieman64 When it was released in 1991, Robert Benton's "Billy Bathgate" was accused of being dull and unfocused. With the slick gangster movies of the 1990s now mimicked to death, today "Bathgate" almost seems interesting.The plot? Loren Dean plays Billy Bathgate, a South Bronx teenager who weasels his way into the criminal organization of Dutch Schultz (Dustin Hoffman). Along the way he befriends and falls in love with one of Schultz's molls, played by Nicole Kidman.Thematically, "Bathgate" doesn't do anything particularly new. What it does well is come at well-worn material from odd angles. Scenes that other crime films skirt over are dwelt upon, Kidman's character constantly mocks the macho pretensions of Schultz's gang, and Bill is an entirely passive character, forever riding a wave of blind luck. Hoffman, meanwhile, plays Schultz as a man of extremes. Though tiny and mild-mannered, he's constantly erupting into violence so as to hide insecurities. Virtually all the problems Schultz faces are a result of his inability to keep a lid on his emotions."Billy Bathgate" boasts excellent production design by Patrizia Von Brandenstein, who attempts to evoke the flavour of mid 1930s New York. Nesot Almendros' cinematography is also fine, packed with rich browns and blacks. Both are responsible for the film's better elements; its spaces, places and approaches to architecture. Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi co-star. The film is loosely based on the life of Jewish mobster Arthur Flegenheimer.8/10 – See Zhang Yimou's "Shanghai Triad".

ADG999 I had a chance to watch "Billy Bathgate" for the first time today (hard to believe it was made over 20 years ago). I am a big fan of gangster pics, especially period ones (Godfather One and Two, Public Enemies, The Untouchables, The Departed, etc.),and I was hoping/expecting this to be in the same vein as those films. However, I was underwhelmed by the film, though I am not sure why. The young lead actor just did not click for me in his role (I kept thinking 'Too bad Leonardo DiCaprio was too young to be in this movie.') I did not sense any chemistry between him and Nicole Kidman-- or between her and Dustin Hoffman, or between her and Bruce Willis. All these men willing to do so much for her sake, but there was nothing about her character that seemed very compelling to me. The whole thing just seemed very flat--nothing about the film caught my imagination. I just kept recasting all the roles in my mind, trying to figure out who might been better suited to play them. All in all, a disappointment for me.

Michael Neumann 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.

ccthemovieman-1 It's kind of shocking to see less than 20 reviews (as of March, 2006) for a movie that stars Dustin Hoffman and Nicole Kidman and also has Bruce Willis and Loren Dean.This story of gangster "Dutch" Schultz is told, like the beginning of Goodfellas, through the eyes of a young guy (Dean) who breaks into the business, so to speak. Probably in this case, he was more attracted to Kidman than the business, and who could blame him?Dean was a complete no-name at the time and is a fine actor. Hoffman plays the crude Schultz and Kidman is his immoral wife. For some people, this film is remembered for quick full frontal nudity shots of Kidman. The most interesting person in the film, I thought, was Schultz' lawyer/confident Otto Berman, played by Steven Hill. Willis also helps make up a good cast, but his role is short.For a gangster/action flick, there wasn't a lot of violence in here and I liked the period detail. It looks nice, especially on DVD. One downfall on some of these modern-day films: there isn't one morally upright character in the story and the filmmakers make Dean and Kidman into sympathetic figures. Overall, however, a good crime movie.