MovieChat Forums > Billy Bathgate (1991) Discussion > Dustin Hoffman was excellent despite the...

Dustin Hoffman was excellent despite the movie's shortcomings

posted 13 years ago by micaofboca-836-322711
13 replies | jump to latest

Despite all the negative criticisms of this film I thought Dustin Hoffman gave a tour de force portrayal of this highly fictionalized production of E.L. Doctorow's 1989 National Book Critics Circle awarded novel. Not only did he (facially, if not physically) resemble Dutch Schultz, but his interpretation of that very unusual character was indicative of Hoffman's marvelous thespian acumen. Despite all the historical inaccuracies such as the demise of Dixie Davis which provided the denouement for the story (although that crooked attorney died in 1970, outliving Luciano) more generous latitude should be granted imaginative fictionalized accounts that accompany such well written and inventive dramatizations.
All in all, I felt Hoffman's performance was just terrific. Whenever he appeared on screen he stole the show. It was hard to keep your eyes off him. What a commanding presence he has.
I would have loved to see Dustin give a performance of Schultz's amazing deathbed words which demonstrate what an interesting character that psychopathic killer actually was in real life. Unfortunately that episode in the gangster's life was an altogether different story and not germane to the episodes covered in Doctorow's story. But to see Dustin Hoffman give a performance of the Beer Baron on his deathbed would be a wonderful addition to this delightful account.

http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dutch.html

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

He did not entirely convince as a psycho, shame Pesci was doing other gangster films.

Its that man again!!

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

uh what do you want? he was so thrilling, captivating, mesmerizing, authoritative, powerful, ruthless, strong, intimidating, and scary in his role. I can't think of another, better Gangster performance in a film except maybe Daniel-day lewis in gangs of new York, but that's it.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

[–] xstevec 12 years ago

Hoffman's done some terrific work, but I think he's miscast here. He's just not an intimidating person, and for a character like Schultz, that's a critical ingredient. He did fine on most scenes, even some of the "crazy" ones, but whenever he showed "tough" I found myself thinking "come on, no underworld thug would back down to that." Still a decent movie.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

you're wrong about that. he's so intimidating in this role and performance and is so scary because he's so authoritative, tough, strong, mean, and intimidating. I've never seen a better performance from him and I've never been more scared of a gangster in a film. why wouldn't any underworld thug back down to that? and how is he not intimidating???!!!

[–] eyebrowmorroco 11 years ago

Yeah, I felt he was off. It really exaggerated his few limitations as an actor.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

what the f are you talking about? you are so wrong. he didn't have any limitations in this performance. he was thrilling, intimidating, exciting, powerful, commanding, extraordinary, mesmerizing, hypnotic, strong, mean, realistic, charismatic, scary, and has an amazing screen presence which totally draws you into his character and his world. this is the best performance that I've ever seen him give.

[–] montrossboc-1 11 years ago

Yes, I liked Hoffman's performance also. The best parts of the film are when he is onscreen.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

exactly. this film is all about his amazing performance. oh my gosh. I've almost never been so drawn to and into, hypnotized, mesmerized, and totally blown away by a performance in a film before. it's like people on here are so stupid that they go with what someone says on here without knowing what the truth is and what they think. they just go along with whatever anyone says on here. so stupid and ignorant how people are mislead and can't think for themselves and think that it's cool to go along with everyone else even if it means that they are wrong. I mean this is the ultimate example of that as if there is one thing you can't say about this film it's that his performance is bad in any way. it's such a brilliant and multi layered performance that to say it's bad in any way is wrong and is an insult to the art and skill and ability of acting.

[–] Naughty-God 9 years ago

Interesting, but I thought Hoffman was part of the various shortcomings this film had.

Overall, I felt like the film was miscast at all levels from Loren Dean and Dustin to Nicole Kidman and Bruce Willis. Maybe it was the script or the direction or BOTH but to me the film plays like a made-for-TV melodrama that just happened to cast some big name A-listers for its time.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

I thought Hoffman was quite good myself, but I agree that it does have a made-for-TV feel to it.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

no it doesn't. if you think that then you're wrong and don't know what made-for-tv movies feel like or are like.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

you're wrong. if there is one thing you can't say about this film it's that his performance is bad. I mean he gave one of the best performances that I've ever seen. he's thrilling, captivating, transcendent, extraordinary, hypnotic, mesmerizing, powerful, strong, intimidating, scary, charismatic, and has so much screen presence that he is magical in this film. and Nicole kidman gives the best performance that I've ever seen her give. and bruce willis also gives a great performance that is uncharacteristically realistic and authentic and underplayed and nuanced.