Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (24)
| Top Critics (7)
| Fresh (9)
| Rotten (15)
| DVD (1)
Despite Dean's alert, open performance, Billy remains an opaque witness to events that are unfolding over his head. Hoffman's performance also is problematic.
Despite a Tom Stoppard script and diligent direction, EL Doctorow's novel about a youngster's experience of the life and times of Dutch Schultz seldom takes off as a movie.
Billy Bathgate isn't an embarrassment, but it's a puzzle. Watching it, you can't locate the passion that drew the filmmakers to it in the first place.
The story sounds promising, yet there's a joyless, dutiful air to everything that happens.
Billy Bathgate isn't an awful film, it's just an empty, terribly conventional $40 million exercise.
Despite the shaggy dog sense of fun, Bathgate fades before you've left your seat.
There's plenty of glossy, slick entertainment here if you haven't gotten overly tired of mob flicks.
Uninspired but intriguing gangster flick with fine work from Hoffman and Kidman.
Who got rich off this film, because looking at it unbiased, you'd think that it cost $12m, not $70m.
Kidman steals the whole show.
All of the leads here -- especially Hoffman, big surprise there -- are top notch and thoroughly believable in their roles. Unfortunately, it seems no one thought out just what their roles should be.
Billy Bathgate cost a lot of money to make, they say, but it's not there on the screen.
Billy Bathgate should be much more exciting and gritty than it is. The story of Dutch Schultz and his decline offers a wealth of material for Hollywood to make a competent gangster film. Instead, Billy Bathgate focuses more on Schultz's protege, and his brief love interest in Nicole Kidman. This succeeds in making the movie boring at times.That said, Dustin Hoffman was excellent as Schultz, and Bruce Willis was effective as well, though ultimately wasted. Hoffman and the excellent world building, the most realistic depiction of 1930s New York I've seen, are why I ultimately enjoyed it, despite its' prominent flaws.
I don't remember too much about it now but my lingering impression is that it was better than I expected for yet another gangster yarn, plus there's always bonus points for Nicole Kidman skinnydipping.
A strangely unfulfilling gangster movie. One would expect a greater film considering the all star cast.
Little known gangster film similar in ways to Casino, Goodfellas set in the 1930's. Has a strong cast including Bruce Willis and Nicole Kidman.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.