Bonnie & Clyde

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.

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.

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.

Bonnie and Clyde (2013)

*** (out of 4)

The life, times and eventual brutal death of Clyde Barrow (Emile Hirsch) and Bonnie Parker (Holliday Grainger) is the focus of this three-hour movie that shows their rise to fame. The latest telling of the Bonnie and Clyde story is a pretty good movie but at the same time you've got to feel that it was a wasted opportunity because so much more could have been done. Again, if you're a film buff or a fan of history then you're going to enjoy this re-enactment but at the same time there were a few important things left out. One being showing the poor state that the country was in while all of this was going on. There really wasn't enough detail to this and I'd also say that the reporter character really didn't serve any purpose. If they were going to use her as much as they did then they might have well told the entire story from her point of view. With that said, there's still plenty going on here that makes it worth sitting through. For starters, the two leads are both very good in their roles as you have no problem believing them as the characters. This here is especially true for Grainger who turns in an excellent performance because there were so many different emotions to Parker yet she captures all of them perfectly and especially towards the end when she starts to "want" the fame more than anything else. William Hurt also turns in a good performance as Frank Hamer and Holly Hunter is also good in the role of Parker's mother. The cinematography is top-notch from start to finish and I also thought they captured the look of the era quite well. The newsreel footage scattered throughout the film was also a nice touch. While this film is very good it's certainly no match for the 1967 film, which remains the greatest version of this story.

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.