Bonnie & Clyde

Boy is this a bad film! And I don't understand it - the cast was good enough but the writers and movie makers made choices in fictionalizing the story to the point where I was just tearing my hair out, screaming at the TV (I saw this, of course, at home). I won't be a spoiler, so I can't get into details but all I want to say here is: avoid this piece of trash! The Warren Beatty movie was so much better and so much truer to the real story it's not funny. (And this is the first bad review I've posted on this site - and I've posted quite a few.) If you do watch this movie, then you owe it to yourself afterward to read a few good books or even just read their wikipedia write-up. You'll then also be angry at all of the fabrications in this film. Why did they choose to diverge from the truth, which makes an even better story than the lie they chose to tell? Sorry. I think movie makers owe true subjects a heavy dose of respect when they present a story that most movie goer will think is true - to present a lie, as they do here, is unconscionable, especially with two such iconic and infamous yet important characters in our nation's history.

Once again we see the glamorization of detestable criminals. I was hopeful that this dramatization would correct many of the mistakes made in the past but this only made things worse in my opinion. The acting left a lot to be desired and the only reason that I even went into the second part was just to finish it out, not because I was captivated or anxious to see the conclusion. Part one of the series left me feeling that this was way over-hyped and like the cover of an old Atari game.

There were several items within the mini-series that have been refuted as false many times and just frankly should not be included in any production that dares to say "based on a true story.' Productions like this make that tag line mean nothing more than that two people with these names existed and they committed crimes. The rest is just what we thought would make the movie good. However, I would say they failed on all fronts.

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.

People complain of its accuracy but I thought it was a great movie and entertaining don't listen to these history morons they are not critics they should have watched a documentary. I get tired of reading post of amateurs criticism that doesn't connect with the general public in any way. Cynical and uninspired come to mind. Why break down the specifics of a part of history made movie that otherwise wouldn't get anyone but these 5 people who hated to watch it due to being to mind draining to watch. Watch the movie with the expectations for entertainment and try to tone down the crazy on your review because you liked the stories in a book of history that could just as inaccurate as the movie.

This is a very pretty television drama. When you watch it you will see the greens just jump out of your screen! And, the actors are very pretty too. But you know, you can step outside right now to your yard and if you are lucky enough to have a blooming plant this time of the year you can hoist up your IPhone and shoot a picture of it and that will be pretty, too.

Too bad, but your flower is insignificant compared to the first of it's species, kind of like this made-for-TV-movie.

Note to the youngsters: Once upon a time Dunaway, Beatty and Penn made a movie that was an outrage versus any other crime movie that had ever been made. So many things about it, including the performances, the editing and the cinematography are so unique-first-time-ever I can't actually believe that I am really seeing this that there can't be any sequel. There can't be any retelling. There can't be this television thing.

So, while I can give it a 5.5 rating I am more into wondering why it wss even made. Hurt and Hunter needed work? Same with Hirsch? Who knows, and more importantly who cares.