speedylara-121-589113 I love historically based movies. I also worked in the movie business and know they are incredibly difficult to make without people getting super critical. If you go and study the true story of Bonnie and Clyde, try to imagine making a movie out of it - it would be 12 hours long and pretty slow at times. I think this film did OK with focusing on the basic main events of the story but it left a lot out and fuzzied the truth here and there in order to do it.It might have been interesting to see some of the details that were missed but when I started thinking about them, I thought - my gosh, the movie would have rambled forever.... the timeline was basically on target and it seems like the writers, director and producers must have made a true time line and then figured out what things to take out...That is why they say it was BASED on a true story - people focus on the word TRUE and forget the word BASED.Someone mentioned that the real characters were not attractive - though the actors are attractive - when I look at pictures of the actual people, they did a good job at resembling them. Remember, there was no photo-shop in those days and if anything, perhaps Parker was a little skinny. But in the pictures, she looks like she tried to dress up. And I think if they hadn't been so poor - in nicer clothes and nicer hair cuts etc - they might have been attractive to a degree in real life - I think its unfair to look at photos from the 1930s and make those claims.Within the scope of the story and the writing, I thought the acting was very good. I felt like Clyde's character was not developed right in the writing. That is not the actor's fault. I felt like Bonnie's character was richly developed and the actress was very good.Pretty much the rest of the cast could have been anyone but I am sure William Hurt and Holly Hunter came in to draw attention to the movie.The drawbacks - since the story made a lot of guesswork as to what was really going on in their minds, I wished they had made Clyde's character more developed like Bonnies. I wish they had brought her poetry into it. I wish they had really explained how POOR Clyde had been - how his family had to live under a truck as kids. How he ended up in jail originally and that he killed someone in prison who raped him.Having been raped in prison and then being in love with Bonnie - it makes sense how he would be especially attached to her and swayed by her to keep robbing people.The movie takes snapshots from their story in order and fills in the gaps with hyphenated information so it ends up not being correct. But I think you get a good idea of BASICALLY what the story was and understand that at the core of the whole thing was a relationship between these two young people. I cant help but feel a lot of sadness for the victims because they had to deal with all the press - all the people who went to see the killers' dead bodies... I wish there would be some background shared on the people who were innocently killed.

TxMike Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker really were two armed robbers in the 1930s. They really did kill a number of people and really did die in an ambush in rural Louisiana in 1934. Over the years some exaggerated stories have popped up here and there, and the writers of this version chose to use some of the exaggerations to make a more interesting story. Be that as it may, and with the disclaimer at the ending credits that many things are fictionalized, taken as a whole it is a very interesting and well-made version of the Bonnie and Clyde story.Emile Hirsch is Clyde Barrow, only about 20 or 21 when this story starts in 1930. It was also the start of the great depression, work was scarce, money was scarce, and petty thief Barrow eventually turned to armed robbery. He was arrested more than once and sent to jail. It is there he had such bad experiences that he became even more hardened and his life of crime was partly to get back at the system. But on more than one occasion he voiced an intention to "pull off one more big one and quit."Very cute young British actress Holliday Grainger is Bonnie Parker, still a teenager when she met Barrow. For whatever reasons they took to each other and soon Bonnie became Clyde's partner in crime. Grainger does a great job with the role, showing a gradual but distinct transformation in attitude as the story progresses.The other key character is William Hurt as Frank Hamer, a semi-retired lawman who was asked specifically to track down and get Bonnie and Clyde. And it is his persistence, with the help of one of Clyde's former associates, that they finally caught up with them in the rural NW Louisiana location. They made no attempt to arrest them, they just shot everything they had to make sure both of them were dead.So, even though much of the story and details surely are fabricated and not intended to be taken as fact, the core of the story over the 4 years from 1930 to 1934 is factual. I saw it as one continuous movie on Netflix streaming movies.

Sonya Troncoso 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.

bob-larrance 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.