Reviews

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.

...This incredible true story could have been much, much better than it was, but choppy editing, inconsistent direction, less-than-great cinematography,and the questionable plot decision to add a fictional American big game hunter to "help" Patterson hunt the lions, made this movie less than it could have been. The fact is that, in real life, Patterson (SPOILER) killed both lions himself, and frankly I think it would have been a better movie if they had written the script to reflect that. The Remington character always seemed somewhat out of place to me, and when I realized he was just a device added by the writers, for reasons that I still can't fathom, I understood why. Maybe they were afraid Val Kilmer could not carry the movie on his own--frankly, I think he could have with no problem. Maybe it was because Michael Douglas was an executive producer on the film, and wanted to be in the movie. Whatever the reason, this movie goes on my list of "missed opportunities" to make a really great film. Eight stars, only because I love the story, and love what the movie could have been.

This movie was so beautifully shot, and the story was so moving. IMHO, the casting was perfect. Edward Norton was excellent as the angry, frustrated doctor, and his chemistry with Naomi Watts was perfect. And what a treat to see Diana Rigg, an actress who has not been afraid of embracing her age. Her portrayal of the Mother Superior was so effective, even if it was only a small roll. Ditto for Tobey Jones, who made what could have been a a caricature, and made him into a fully rounded character. Spoiler: I cried at the end, and the film's story (especially the ending) has haunted me all day. I missed this one on the big screen, but watched it last night in our home theater--the venue may have been smaller, but the film was just as compelling.

I caught this movie on late-night cable a few years ago, and watched it because I like Angus McFayden. I got wrapped up in the story, and it has stuck with me ever since. McFayden does such a good job of playing a suspicious, very guarded man who lets down his defenses when he falls for a beautiful woman. You can see in his eyes how he feels, without him ever having to say a word (reminds me of Russell Crowe).The pain he feels as he tells her how much he cares about her is palpable. You can tell how hard it is for him to let himself be vulnerable. Natasha Henstridge does a surprisingly effective job as the girl. She's not the world's best actress, but she makes us believe that McFayden's character would fall in love with her. The film was obviously shot on a shoe-string budget, but McFayden's acting helps bring the film up to a higher level. All in all, pretty good for late-night viewing.