Bonnie y Clyde

The much-hyped TV movie, "Bonnie & Clyde," is a mix of the good and the bad. There is excellent cinematography, sound design, and performance by William Hurt. But, there is also the excessive artistic license and lack of historical accuracy.

The result is a mixed bag that can't be either recommended or asked to be avoided. The movie takes the view that Bonnie Parker was the instigator of everything that went on. She is portrayed as someone who is desperate for glory and is willing to sacrifice whomever has to be sacrificed to get what she wants. This runs counter to what history says, which is that Clyde Barrow was a criminal with little regard for human life, and was going to do whatever necessary so that he did not go back to prison.

The movie was shown in two parts. The first centered a lot on Barrow's experiences in prison, including being raped, which is particularly grisly. You used to have to go to a dark, R-rated film like "Deliverance" for that, but now you can see it on TV! There is a fair amount of bloody violence and PG-rated language. This most likely would be a fairly strong PG-13 or lower-level R, if it were in theaters.

The first part is mostly preamble, and not very interesting preamble at that. The second part is where the movie goes into high gear, with all the shootings and graphic violence I am guessing people came for. The highlight, though, is a great performance by William Hurt! When I saw him in the cast, I was very hopeful, since he just gave an excellent performance in the Discovery Channel film, "The Challenger Disaster." Here, he gets down and dirty as a determined crime fighter, who has no problems killing whomever he gets a chance to, or to union bust for greedy corporations. His telling of why he's come out of retirement to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde to a colleague is chilling.

After four hours, including commercials, the ending to the film comes so suddenly, you wonder how they could spend those four hours on all that came before it, and only spend a few minutes on the ending. Very bizarre!

The movie was directed by Bruce Beresford, who most famously directed "Breaker Morant" and "Driving Miss Daisy." Here, he makes the most of the script he has been given. The cinematography is excellent! Some of the best I have seen on TV in recent memory. The sound design is excellent and is striking through a good stereo set up. There are some real irritants here, though. John Debney's film score is uneven, only working well in the final 40 minutes of the production. The performance by the lady playing the exploitative newspaper woman is highly irritating. The voice over by Clyde, as with all voice overs, demonstrates laziness by the screenwriters. It usually shows a lack of imagination to use cinematic techniques to show what's happening, and instead just tell us with the voice over. Clyde's "second sight" construct by the screenwriters, in which he sees events before they happen is odd, but ironically provides some of the rare cinematic quality the film needed.

In the end, stylized tellings of history can work, when they are done well. Such was the case with Arthur Penn's classic version of the story from 1967. And, was also the case with the Brian De Palma-directed, David Mamet-scripted "The Untouchables" from 1987. There were definite historic liberties taken in both cases. But, since both films were so masterfully done, it doesn't matter! We know that neither was trying to be a documentary from the get go, so it's okay. We know that there are resources where we can learn the true story. The films are there as art, and great art at that. This TV movie doesn't get there, though. And, that's the difference.

******* (7 Out of 10 Stars)

Are that there was a gang known as Bonnie and Clyde...

They had a lawman named Frank Hamer (a real life Walker: Texas Ranger) chasing after them...

And their stories converge in Louisiana when an ambush kills Bonnie and Clyde.

Everything else was just filler to try to tell a story.

Let's be real here though, it was A&E that put this together: Arts and Entertainment, which also owns Lifetime (conversely known as Wifetime), and History, which seems less concerned about history and more concerned about spinning a good story. With that, the cinematography is good for a "made for television" budget, and the acting is good. It isn't garbage like many reviews are saying it is. However, elements of teleplay really push what's good about this into territory that it doesn't need to go.

The real history of Bonnie and Clyde is compelling enough, considering much of what they did was interpreted as desperate people fighting back against cold-hearted and nameless capitalist institutions during the Great Depression. And that a woman would get caught up in it was also compelling. Had the story stuck to that, this would have been better. There is however no need to distort the history to tell a good story when the story can stand on its own.

It gets credit from me for the filming and the acting. It looses too much on the rest.

I just watched the Bonnie and Clyde mini series. The Story differs from the 1967 Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway classic. The one surprise I found here. The Story centres on Clyde. Emile Hirsh does a good job as Clyde Barrow. Holiday Graniger does a very good job as Bonnie Parker. But while I watched the film I found myself wondering just how much was fact. And How much was fiction. William Hurt plays Texas Ranger Frank Hamner with a sense of Justice and moral outrage. When Hamner plots to execute Bonnie and Clyde a young cop asks him who appointed him as executioner and Hamner points to a dead cop. "He did" He coldly replies. Hurt plays the role of Hamner the way the history books write about him. He hated criminals and when Bonnie and Clyde made fools of the authorities he decided to execute them . Now the Biggest surprise for me was in the handling of Clyde Barrow. Clyde has this reputation of being a man so far under bonnie's spell that he was almost dumb. Not so. As far back as 1958 when Dorothy Provine made the Bonnie PArker story. There was this myth about Bonnie. This mini series addresses that myth and humanizes her and Clyde to the point where they feel like real people. And when Clyde gets tired of it and finds out to his horror. That Bonnie isn't . He realizes that he helped create a monster who wants more. More fame More headlines more money. No matter how high the bodies pile up. I enjoyed it a lot. where the 1967 Bonnie and Clyde tries to make them out to be anti heroes. This mini series is out to make them criminals the way they were. nothing heroic about them. Would I recommend this to any one interested in the 1930's crime scene yes. Would I pass it off as the real story of Bonnie and Clyde ? No Because while it tries too hard to be as close to the facts. It has a way of reverting to Hollywood story telling. But all in all not a bad bit of film making at all.

Holliday Grainger and Emile Hirsch are appealing and exciting as Bonnie and Clyde. Both actors give strong performances. This period piece is done well as far as the weapons, cars, costumes and set design. Even the golden look in certain scenes gives a gritty 1930's feel to the film. William Hurt is wonderful as Frank Hamer, the relentless Texas Ranger in hot pursuit of Bonnie and Clyde. Holly Hunter, as Bonnie's mom also turns in a solid performance. I really wanted to like this film and it is very entertaining. But the story is far from being accurate. There was plenty of creative license taken in this Bonnie and Clyde version. For one thing, portraying Bonnie as the instigator in several bank robberies and whose ego was primarily fueled by being famous and seeing her name in lights is not true. Bonnie's letters to Clyde (in prison) show quite the opposite. She wanted Clyde to "not be a thug" and urged him to go straight. Many of her letters are quoted in published and film biographies of Bonnie and Clyde. As for the witness who initially reported Bonnie shot one of the Grapevine police officers and heard her say, "his head bounced like a rubber ball", was later discredited. That scene in the movie never took place. However, newspapers of the day ran with the first story and helped turn the public sentiment against Bonnie and Clyde. There are documentaries available that give a more accurate historical account of these two notorious outlaws. This version of "Bonnie and Clyde" is compelling. But for historical accuracy, this Roman a Clef is way off the mark. If you want the true story, check out "Bonnie & Clyde: The Real Story" from the History Channel or read John Neal Phillips book "Blanche Barrow, my life with Bonnie and Clyde." Not only was Blanche married to Clyde's brother Buck, she ran around with the Barrow gang and left journals (1933 - 1935) during her prison stint after being shot and captured.

What a joke. They may have gotten the vehicles and clothing right for the era but that's where the realism ends. A disclaimer stating that this is a fictional account of the short lives of Bonnie & Clyde should have been part of the introduction. The actress, Holliday Grainger, playing the role of Bonnie Parker, missed completely. She looked more like a young "Jackie O" then Bonnie Parker; also, her English accent seemed to mask her attempt to carry the southern drawl needed to carry the part. As for Emile Hirsch, playing the part of Clyde Barrow; this was missed-cast. He acted more like a Leonardo DiCaprio want-a-be then Clyde Barrow. (Sorry for the comparison Leonardo). Emile, don't quit your day job.