fidraisle-1
This is another of those films that gets a "1" only because it's not possible to give it a "0". Normally, I am critical of a film if it is meant to be historic and the costuming fails abysmally. This is not true in this case. If there is one thing that could be praised, it would be the very well done costuming. But sadly, like another "historical" series ("Outlander") though the costuming is brilliant, the story line is absolute rubbish. The story of Bonnie and Clyde is fascinating enough without the voice-over, the pure fantasy story that was woven through this. I tried about three different times to watch this (thank goodness for Netflix) and I gave up. The 1967 version with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway was not good, but it was far, far better than this nonsense.
daydriver2010
I missed this mini-series when it was originally aired a couple of years ago and now just watched most of it on the History Channel. I can not recommend this program on this cable station at all for the reasons mentioned below.Sorry to say this but as a four-hour presentation it has what I believe to be nearly 90 minutes of commercials! Not just ads but AWFUL, long station breaks! I do not know who made the mini series or who broadcast it originally a couple of years ago. If it was an original HBO or Showtime production that would partially explain why it was so damn long on the History Channel.If it was made for premium pay cable then it should have stayed there and not have been cut to pieces by advertisers! I'm 62 years old and I've have already viewed two LIFETIMES of terrible prescription drug and car insurance commercials and resent having my intelligence so rudely insulted by advertisers. I do not need any help whatsoever in deciding what drugs to ask my doctor to prescribe OR who to pay to insure my damn car!Not to mention the constant self-promotion programming during breaks by The History Channel. I miss being able to record something like this on VCR and then later wear out the machine fast-forwarding the ads.
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.
onethousandowls
I don't claim to be an expert on Bonnie & Clyde, nor even to have as avid an interest as some of the other reviews I've read pertaining to this title, but I still appreciate some degree of honesty whenever the story focuses on real characters. And I am going to go ahead and assume that this movie has more plot holes than it has bullet holes.Clyde is portrayed as more of a foil for Bonnie, who seems to boss him around and have no interest in him or anything but the thrill of notoriety. I don't know how much of this is true, but it did seem to me that Bonnie & Clyde were supposed to be lovers rather than a one-sided fling. Clyde has a weird third sight that basically serves as an ongoing spoiler and as a way to make the film more exciting (because God knows nothing else does). Bonnie just seems kind of obsessed and prone to panic attacks whenever the spotlight isn't on her.The movie basically consists of a bunch of boring dialogue, pointless historical inaccuracies, and newspapers summarizing what would be the real action of the robberies. In short, a documentary would be much more exciting and informative of Bonnie & Clyde's story.I watched this all in one 3-hour dosage on Netflix, and it wasn't so boring that it was unbearable, but it wasn't memorable or even a good way to kill my Saturday. The acting and filmography weren't all bad, but the plot and dialogue were dull and sometimes laughable.
AD
