sotheran57 I have been a Doctorow fan for a long time and have read most of his works. His book Billy Bathgate was given to me for a Christmas present and I read it three times in a few months. I had not seen the film but, again, I got it for a Christmas present this year. While I enjoyed the film the book was still fresh on my mind and I found, while a lot of the story was adhered to, the ending in the film was not as satisfactory as the book. It seemed to 'fizzle out' when I was expecting the final ironic twist in the tale. Also because the story is quiet complex I would expect that viewers who had not read the book might find the film a little bewildering. Loren Dean was certainly not up to the titular role - he just didn't seem to be a credible character and looked almost bemused by what was going on around him; in reality, I mean, not as the character. Dustin Hoffman was good as Schultz but did not have enough to do. Steve Hill as Otto, one of the important characters in the book, was excellent. Enjoyable with reservations. If you haven't, you must read the book.

dilbertsuperman Well acted, with a nice dual story going on, add in Nicole Kidman naked and hey.. this isn't bad at all!! Add in Dustin damn Hoffman as our lead gangster, and stuff is getting interesting!! Our main character however, is BILLY- a streetwise kid with a heart of gold that wants to see if he has a shot at making it big with Dutch - the guy who owns the neighborhood. Things are in transition for Dutch, and Billy is exposed to the pressures and pitfalls of running a criminal organization by falling in with Dutch.Enter Nicole Kidman- Dutch is smitten with her beauty, she's married but she has a thing for gangsters apparently...This has a lot of tension in the triangle between Mrs. Harrison (Nicole), Dutch (Dustin) And Billy.A cameo from Bruce Willis is a welcome counterpoint to the interpretation of Dutch, and you will recognize one of Dutch's henchmen from Fargo or Reservoir Dogs. ;-) I would have liked the ending to be a bit more elaborate but the ride there was pretty damn elaborate so it's all good.

elshikh4 How rare this movie is without a doubt. Why? I'll tell you. It's a rare time to see (Hoffman) as a gangster, a rare time to see a bad big production mafia movie at the 1990s, and a rare time to see a bunch of fine artists work in so much hatred for their jobs.. Or that what seemed eventually ! After watching I was thinking of so many silly remarks could be said about such a movie (Actually that was partly during the watching itself !) and the examples are endless : How it's one of the silliest crime movies I have ever seen, and this is a list you can find at it movies like (Mobsters) from the very same year as long as we're talking mafia. How the director (Robert Benton) managed to hide the shortness of (Hoffman) in front of (Nicole Kidman)'s very tall figure ?! How the great (Dustin Hoffman) delivered a very weak performance, even if you compared it to (Al Pacino)'s similar character at (Dick Tracy - 1990), putting in mind how it was close to caricature, and I mean (Pacino)'s character ! How this movie contained maybe the ugliest nude scene ever, and I'm not referring to the scenes of (Loren Dean) which were nude of any possible acting's talent ! Moreover, How it's a movie without any peculiarity unless for having the word "poor" all over everything, despite the huge 50 million budget !? How you'd feel all the time that some elements (or actors) are in the wrong place. And eventually How there is a strong strange sense of apathy like all the cast's members were hating what they were doing, or not convinced enough ! All in all if you watched this movie then it's a bad memory however forgettable, and if you didn't.. Then How lucky you are !

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.