Bonnie y Clyde

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.

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.

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.

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.