Edwin Boyd

For once a Canadian film set in Canada, without an American "name" star and done in a distinctively Canadian style. There's non Hollywood glitz. Indeed most of it is shot in the winter with typical Canadian winter scenes. (Hollywood never does that unless it's a movie about skiing.) Nor are the bad guys glamourized. The Boyd Gang may have been the closest thing we have to Bonnie and Clyde. But they aren't wrapped in tinsel the way B&C were. Nor is there any of the excess gunplay that Hollywood so loves. The entire film is shot in a low saturated colour --- almost black and white --- which, with the many winter scenes, gives it a gritty feel that is altogether appropriate. They also have done a superb job of recreating the late forties and early fifties. The cars, the furniture, the clothing, the interiors are truly representative of the era. I know. We once had a bedroom set and a kitchen table identical to ones in the film. All the more surprising that there are two major goofs...a widescreen movie theatre and a home telephone which looks nothing like the standard black Bell Canada handset that was universal in those days. But those are small points. This is a gripping, graphic, genuine piece of work.

Toronto was seemingly a nice and secure town after the World War II, and no or poor security measures in prisons and banks made gangs' ideas and plans easy to fulfill and proceed. Moreover, radios and black-and-white newspapers were not much of help in engaging co-citizens for identification and informing about criminals. Such was the surroundings where Boyd and his fellows lived their life; not as brightly as their U.S. counterparts before and then, which is probably the reason why the depiction is not that catchy and even robberies resemble asking money nicely in the presence of guns... Pre-robbery scenes are too long and only loosely connected with the remaining story, and the ending is rather awkward. The cast is uneven as well, with non-Canadians performing more versatile (Kelly Reilly as Doreen Boyd and Brian Cox as Glover); those presenting the Boyd gang seemed not catchy to me.

Thus, an above-average story based on real events and characters, but not a must-see movie.

Okay, the movie is based on a true story (a fad nowadays, it seems), and it most certainly has its moments. But in general the entire flick lacks some panache. If it were a Canadian province, I'd say it's (northern) Manitoba on a Tuesday night.

While the main protagonist is portrayed rather decently, as well as his 'transformation' the rest of the movie is a bit stale and dry - I'd go so far to say clinically clean. Yeah, I get it, he's quite a normal guy, a victim of circumstance and all, trying to make ends meet and all. And I dig the story, but it's like eating a loaf of dry bread - you satisfy your hunger but without much joy. Personally I think the director (maybe as writer, too), tried a bit too hard to make it "arty" and forgot that a movie also should be entertaining, otherwise it's just bland ol' life. I'll keep the director in mind, maybe his next flick will be less Manitoba and more Québec.

I did not really sync with this movie until Boyd stopped his bus to carry on a wounded vet who was in a wheel chair. He carried him over his back. The faces in the bus were all blank and without expression, you would think risking your life for your country was worth at least some feeling. I can remember growing up in Canada in the 50s, everyone had a stiff upper lip, very few ever talked about WWII. My uncle least of all, until his son, a fireman, was killed saving a man from a burning apartment. Suddenly his days on Malta during the German blitz came back. The movie captured the chill of post WWII and the bleak Victorian like atmosphere in Toronto. The scenes from the Don Jail were totally Gothic, even now the mention of the jail sends shivers down your spine. Nowadays, our wars are fought without declaration, our soldiers are sent to places where they don't even know who the enemy is. We expect that our society will be protected by superheros. The truth is that ordinary people fight for our freedom without fanfare, and unfortunately often with no support when they come home. This movie was a perfect description of this.

Handsomely shot, with a slick, cold style, this movie plays out like a made for TV production with (slightly) better production values. As a non-Canadian who always sees a lot of Canadian films while attending the Toronto Film Festival, I just couldn't bring myself to care about this lead character. Played by the solid but ultra-bland Scott Speedman (who is looking more and more mature but whose handsomeness is wearing thin), we follow the adventures and travails of a famous Canadian historical personage. But "Bonnie and Clyde" this is not. On the contrary the movie suffers from a lack of zest, a lack of energy. Speedman is nice to look at but he brings no sense of urgency to anything he does. I know it's a stretch, but compare this to Warren Beatty, who was the very definition of a sex icon but who brought a goofy, affable, ever-so-slightly psycho charm to his Clyde Barrow. We get none of that here. Not even close. On the plus side I enjoyed some of the minor characters and for a first film it's reasonably well directed. BUT...and this is a big "but"...there is a deficit of real drama. This genre has been done so well by so many A-list directors and actors that a minor entry into the realm just isn't enough. I'm adding a star because I think this director could have a future but I don't see this film traveling south of its Canadian audience, nor does it deserve to. And truth be told I don't think most Canucks will care either. The film doesn't give them a good enough reason to, and this, above all, is its failing.