Bonnie & Clyde (2013) User Reviews

A Mixed Bag

[jmillerdp · 7/10 · 10 December 2013]

The much-hyped TV movie, "Bonnie & Clyde," is a mix of the good and the bad. There is excellent cinematography, sound design, and performance by William Hurt. But, there is also the excessive artistic license and lack of historical accuracy.

The result is a mixed bag that can't be either recommended or asked to be avoided. The movie takes the view that Bonnie Parker was the instigator of everything that went on. She is portrayed as someone who is desperate for glory and is willing to sacrifice whomever has to be sacrificed to get what she wants. This runs counter to what history says, which is that Clyde Barrow was a criminal with little regard for human life, and was going to do whatever necessary so that he did not go back to prison.

The movie was shown in two parts. The first centered a lot on Barrow's experiences in prison, including being raped, which is particularly grisly. You used to have to go to a dark, R-rated film like "Deliverance" for that, but now you can see it on TV! There is a fair amount of bloody violence and PG-rated language. This most likely would be a fairly strong PG-13 or lower-level R, if it were in theaters.

The first part is mostly preamble, and not very interesting preamble at that. The second part is where the movie goes into high gear, with all the shootings and graphic violence I am guessing people came for. The highlight, though, is a great performance by William Hurt! When I saw him in the cast, I was very hopeful, since he just gave an excellent performance in the Discovery Channel film, "The Challenger Disaster." Here, he gets down and dirty as a determined crime fighter, who has no problems killing whomever he gets a chance to, or to union bust for greedy corporations. His telling of why he's come out of retirement to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde to a colleague is chilling.

After four hours, including commercials, the ending to the film comes so suddenly, you wonder how they could spend those four hours on all that came before it, and only spend a few minutes on the ending. Very bizarre!

The movie was directed by Bruce Beresford, who most famously directed "Breaker Morant" and "Driving Miss Daisy." Here, he makes the most of the script he has been given. The cinematography is excellent! Some of the best I have seen on TV in recent memory. The sound design is excellent and is striking through a good stereo set up. There are some real irritants here, though. John Debney's film score is uneven, only working well in the final 40 minutes of the production. The performance by the lady playing the exploitative newspaper woman is highly irritating. The voice over by Clyde, as with all voice overs, demonstrates laziness by the screenwriters. It usually shows a lack of imagination to use cinematic techniques to show what's happening, and instead just tell us with the voice over. Clyde's "second sight" construct by the screenwriters, in which he sees events before they happen is odd, but ironically provides some of the rare cinematic quality the film needed.

In the end, stylized tellings of history can work, when they are done well. Such was the case with Arthur Penn's classic version of the story from 1967. And, was also the case with the Brian De Palma-directed, David Mamet-scripted "The Untouchables" from 1987. There were definite historic liberties taken in both cases. But, since both films were so masterfully done, it doesn't matter! We know that neither was trying to be a documentary from the get go, so it's okay. We know that there are resources where we can learn the true story. The films are there as art, and great art at that. This TV movie doesn't get there, though. And, that's the difference.

******* (7 Out of 10 Stars)

Entertaining Fictionalized Bonnie & Clyde

[sonyareyna11 · 7/10 · 19 January 2014]

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.

The Mythmaking of Bonnie & Clyde

[pwiditz · 7/10 · 10 December 2013]

I am an amateur historian who is fascinated with the prohibition/depression era. The criminals and their opposite lawmen are the stuff of legend and this miniseries focuses highly on the legend and less on the facts. In defense of the writers, the facts of this era are often nebulous, contradicting, and confusing, so a little bit of a mythology mindset won't hurt anyone. This miniseries is not completely off base in depicting the most famous criminal couple in US history, especially when compared to the 1967 version. This modern reboot of the famous duo's crime spree was not that bad and was entertaining to anyone who was not highly familiar with the details of the couple's exploits. If you do not care how historically accurate the series is, stop reading here because the spoilers start below:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!

If I were to re-title the series with a more descriptive name I would call it "The Mythmaking of Bonnie and Clyde. The writers of this series focused heavily on the mythology behind the gangster era with an emphasis on fate. The flashes Clyde had all throughout the series such as seeing his brother's head blown open and the bullet holes in the bathtub scene are ominous signs of a violent death. Clyde seems to want to abandon his violent lifestyle, but as 'fate' would have it he is pulled back into it by Bonnie or through circumstances. This mythical quality added to the series is reminiscent to the Greek description of a vision from the oracle at Delphi (minus the fortune cookie like answers from the priests on stones...that part of the oracle always makes me laugh). Clyde meets Bonnie in the series at her wedding when he catches her...garment and Clyde falls under Bonnie's trance. He will later take her to a speak easy where he tells her that the two of them are meant to be. Again, more fate related themes that engulf the series, sadly at the expense of historical authenticity. There is little consensus as to how Bonnie and Clyde met, but the most likely story is that Clyde was helping out an injured friend and Bonnie was also there serving food. Less mythological and dramatic than at Bonnie's wedding, but far more likely. Bonnie's husband, Roy Thornton, was a professional criminal and was constantly in jail. He was believed to have remarked after hearing of the pair's deaths, "I'm glad they died like they did. It's much better than being in jail" or something to that affect. It is clear that Bonnie was hardly a virtuous girl who was caught up by Clyde's smooth talking, but that she was naturally attracted to men of criminal activity. Bonnie was believed to have carried a gun, but was only observed shooting a weapon once by a credible source, a Joplin Police officer who was pinned down by fire from Bonnie using a BAR during the apartment escape. However, the series combines two incidences, the Joplin and the Kansas City getaways into one. The getaway depicted in the series was set in Joplin, but actually depicted the Kansas City getaway since that was the one where Buck, Clyde, and Blanche were all wounded. Also, Bonnie would be burned on the leg in Texas, not in Missouri, before the Kansas City getaway where Buck would be mortally wounded. The series fails to cast Barrow gang trigger man William Jones even though he was highly important to the gang's successful escape. The farmer's account of the Easter Sunday murder of two officers as depicted in the series was found to be highly inaccurate about a month after the incident since all bullets extracted from the officer's bodies matched the same gun, a .45 Colt Automatic that would be found on Clyde at the time of his death. Bonnie never was known to carry a .45, but sometimes carried a .38. It was also determined that the farmer was too far away to accurately hear what Bonnie might have said when she ran over to the dying officer, so it is highly unlikely that Bonnie executed the officer with the remark, "his head bounced just like a rubber ball". However, the press at the time did carry this story and it seriously turned the public against the couple, particularly Bonnie who then had her first murder charge placed on her after this incident. The series also failed to show Clyde's modified "Whip-it guns." He sawed off the butt stock and shortened the barrel of a BAR, which he also fitted with a sling, so he could 'whip it out,' which gave his gang an edge over lawmen. The series did vividly depict Clyde's term in prison at Eastham and historically his time at Eastham is what drove Clyde to kill. Clyde would commit his first murder in prison when he killed a prisoner who sexually assaulted him regularly. Clyde was acquitted of the murder, but harbored a violent hatred for the Texas prison system. If anything other than Clyde's natural propensity for crime is to blame for his targeting of lawmen, it was his hatred for the dysfunctional Texas prison system. The series shows Clyde breaking Buck out of prison, when in actuality he busted out at least five inmates in 1934, after Buck's death in Iowa. During the breakout, one of the escapees (not Clyde) killed a guard. Frank Hamer was hired to hunt the gang down after the Eastham breakout of 1934. Hamer understood that the police had been out-gunned in most fights and that the gang was highly proficient in combat. The machine gun restrictions enacted after the St. Valantines Day massacre were in place and this had not stopped the Barrow gang from breaking into national guard armories to furnish themselves with military grade weapons. Hamer was forced to apply to the federal government for permits to obtain the proper weapons to confront the gang. Hamer was not involved with the Barrow case until 1934.

Fun,, but wow,

[MrOvletine · 23 July 2018]

"Based on the true story" ... is the stupidest thing they could have said when talking about this film. There is so much wrong with it historically, it's unreal. Obviously they did no research at all on this. Bonnie never killed anyone,, and she sure didn't shoot some innocent home owner in the face through a car window. In this fanciful tale,, Clyde is suddenly a saxophone player. WHAT??? Where did this come from. He also has 'second sight'.... WHAT??? Where did this come from.??? Bonnie never showed up alone at a reporters home to tell her to make sure she put her name in the paper.... WHAT?? Where did this come from. Bonnie never sent her photos to a Hollywood studio... where did that come from? In this version,, they were robbing banks all over the place. In reality Bonnie and Clyde were small town crooks who usually robbed easy targets like filling stations and convenience stores. And Bonnie never took part in an actual robbery. They inserted this ridiculous character of the female reporter on the case - which didn't happen. Did some femminists get a hold of the script and demand the facts of history be changed? Now the stupidest plot points. While staying at Methvin's father's house, Clyde hears him talking on the telephone telling someone, most likely law enforcement that they are there. And yet Bonnie and Clyde return to the same house weeks later????? Even though Clyde realizes the guy is going to turn them in.? Final scene,, i dreaded seeing this,, but yup,, they did the old 'dancing puppet' thing as Bonnie and Clyde dance around in the car as the bullets hit them. Clyde was killed outright by a single shot to the head. The rest of the bullets hitting him would have him hopping around like he was on strings. But since they did this in the original version, now it's the thing to do. Fun movie to watch, but a saxophone playing , psychic Clyde Barrow?? Whew!

boohoo not historical accurate. .

[cwdthaman-409-251017 · 7/10 · 3 November 2014]

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.

Hollywood took liberties with film

[justinhadley · 6/10 · 8 December 2013]

Not bad movie, but Hollywood took liberties with storyline. When Bonnie Parker met Roy Thornton she was only fifteen years old. One year later they were married Bonnie had gotten a tattoo above her right knee on her thigh, of double hearts which contained both of their names. Roy, a criminal himself was away from home for weeks at a time. Bonnie finally got fed up and the marriage fell apart. In January 1930, Bonnie and Clyde met at a mutual friend's house. They should realize people use the internet to read up on stories and movies. So Clyde could not have crash Bonnie's wedding in 1926. The acting is well done and entertaining.

Enjoyable fiction

[Hel_Bent · 7/10 · 11 February 2014]

Having been seduced by her performance in The Borgias, I watched this purely because I spotted Holliday Grainger in the cast list. While she's no Lucrezia in this, she holds her own with a charismatic performance and believable accent. Emile as Clyde was a pleasant surprise; likable and authentic. However, liberties have clearly been taken with the interpretation of true events. Take it with a pinch of salt and enjoy it for what it is - an indulgent retelling of an iconic piece of American history which infuses fact with fiction for impact. There's eye candy aplenty with props and casting, and the music adds atmosphere. It's easy to get a sense of the period and it left me feeling vaguely nostalgic and inspired to find out more about the reality behind the story.

Come hell or high water we're family.

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 6/10 · 9 December 2013]

This is certainly a different film than the one we are all familiar with. It is not a remake, but a re-imagining.

We all remember Clyde Barrow, played here by Emile Hirsch instead of Warren Beatty, as someone with sexual problems. Well, there are no problems in this movie, as Clyde and Bonnie Parker, played by Holliday Grainger instead of Faye Dunaway, get it on and get it on frequently. There was certainly no "sexual content" warning in Beatty's film.

Speaking of Bonnie Parker, she seems to be the one all after the publicity and fame. She completely outshine Clyde, who constantly wants to quit.

Bonnie wasn't the only strong woman in the picture. Elizabeth Reaser plays P.J. Lane, a reporter who knows what she wants and knows how to get it. I have never seen Reaser before, as she was in that fake vampire series that I refuse to watch, but she added immensely to the film.

The violence ramps up in the second half. Once they kill once, they get to like it and get more firepower, and leave more than one behind at each stop.

William Hurt is great as Frank Hamer, who always gets his man, and will certainly get Bonnie and Clyde at the end.

What I find funny...

[ferreira0665 · 9/10 · 6 October 2014]

Whether liberties were taken or not, everyone is basing the history of the Bonnie and Clyde off of hearsay said by other people. This was a story actually focusing on Bonnie and Clyde and not what others had said about them. People claim Ralph Fults has said he never killed anyone. But he was a criminal just like them and oh so many criminals tell the truth. I don't understand people's love for the 1967 movie which was fantasy too saying it was more historically accurate. Um...Why? Were they in the backseat with Bonnie and Clyde during the events? No. They don't know what happened. And we will never know what happened between Bonnie and Clyde. What truly happened. Blanche was a criminal too. Can we really take statements made by criminals known for being dishonest truthfully? Come on, people.

Again whether or not this story was more true or not, I don't know but to say that Bonnie wasn't an instigator when we have no evidence to prove that she wasn't. In fact the TV movie even covers that the papers were printing that Clyde was the more ruthless of the two and she was merely along for the ride when we don't know whether or not that was true or not, cause we weren't there. I am more willing to believe she was the instigator. It doesn't make sense for Clyde to be comfortable robbing mom and pop shops and gas stations and then all of the sudden want to do bigger jobs when he was fine with the small ones.

Second part salvages series somewhat

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 10 December 2013]

This is a two part mini-series about the legendary Great Depression young criminals. I was hoping for a gritty realistic portrayal of these two icons. But it got a little too Twilight teen drama. The first part was close to being unwatchable, but the second part was salvaged by William Hurt, more gunplay, and better chemistry in the quartet.

Holliday Grainger is playing a hot Bonnie Parker with her ruby red lips. This is her movie. She's hamming it up. In this version, Bonnie gets tired of being 2nd fiddle, and pushes to get top billing as Bonnie and Clyde. Emile Hirsch doesn't have the energy as Clyde Barrow. He is overshadowed by Holliday. In fact, he's overshadowed by the more charismatic Lane Garrison as Buck Barrow. And William Hurt actually gave a sense of authority and substance in this otherwise romanticized fable. The series picks up in the second part. In that section, the quartet gets formed and they get chased by lawman Frank Hamer (William Hurt). The characters feel like they hit their stride. While the first part feels like a fumbling introduction. It never got to where I'd hope, but the second part salvages something from the mini-series.

The only truths found in this made for television movie

[christopher-cole83 · 4/10 · 1 September 2014]

Are that there was a gang known as Bonnie and Clyde...

They had a lawman named Frank Hamer (a real life Walker: Texas Ranger) chasing after them...

And their stories converge in Louisiana when an ambush kills Bonnie and Clyde.

Everything else was just filler to try to tell a story.

Let's be real here though, it was A&E that put this together: Arts and Entertainment, which also owns Lifetime (conversely known as Wifetime), and History, which seems less concerned about history and more concerned about spinning a good story. With that, the cinematography is good for a "made for television" budget, and the acting is good. It isn't garbage like many reviews are saying it is. However, elements of teleplay really push what's good about this into territory that it doesn't need to go.

The real history of Bonnie and Clyde is compelling enough, considering much of what they did was interpreted as desperate people fighting back against cold-hearted and nameless capitalist institutions during the Great Depression. And that a woman would get caught up in it was also compelling. Had the story stuck to that, this would have been better. There is however no need to distort the history to tell a good story when the story can stand on its own.

It gets credit from me for the filming and the acting. It looses too much on the rest.

GREAT FLICK!

[rufsurf · 10/10 · 13 October 2022]

I don't know what these other jokers are talking about with these bad reviews. I did my historian research and this movie is right on target (so to speak lol)! Yes there is some adage for drama but after all it is a lifetime movie. Clyde was indeed a saxophone player and Bonnie did write poems. And to all you naysayers check your facts before you go blabbing bad reviews on something which clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. All three movies made about Bonnie and Clyde parallel each other for the most part. The 1967 film which was referred to in the reviews as the most accurate starts out inaccurately. Bonnie and Clyde were introduced by a friend of Bonnie's which is not reflected in the 1967 film or in this one. Still I could watch it over and over again and I already have and will continue to do so! Outstanding cast and must see film! Love it!!!

Pretty good... but could've been better

[fullergarrett1 · 6/10 · 13 January 2014]

I found out about this movie the night before it premiered on a YouTube advertisement. I then watched bits and pieces of the first part on A&E. But I missed the second night, or the second part. I watched the whole miniseries on A&E's website.

Here's my thing on it: it was good, but it could've been plenty better. Although many would disagree, I think the acting was excellent. The actors and actresses (most of which I've never heard of before) did very well. I liked Lane (who played Buck) the best, but Emilie (who played Clyde) did an excellent job also.

A major con would be that it was inaccurate. I know it was made for our entertainment, but I would have expected Bonnie to be less of the boss and Clyde more of the boss.

Here's some pro's and cons I've listed. Pros: -Good acting -Good editing/special effects Cons: -Inaccurate

All in all, I think it deserves a 6/10 star. I would have also loved to see some "behind the scenes" footage.

Only Good If You Don't Know The True Story

[iamyuno2 · 4/10 · 23 December 2013]

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.

The True Story of Bonnie and Clyde ? Doubtful

[bluesman-20 · 18 December 2013]

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.

Entertaining Bio-Fluff

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 4 September 2014]

Slick and Good Looking TV-Movie that has some Style and Swagger with a Performance by Holiday Grainger as Bonnie with a Doll-Like Look. She Persuasively Captures Her Transformation from Glory Hound to Delusional Psychosis. Emile Hirsch as Clyde is Rather Bland and let's Bonnie Steal the Show.

The Supporting Characters are OK with Holly Hunter and William Hurt doing Yeoman Work. The Romanticism is Relentless with Much Bedroom Bouncing and Pointed Pauses for Hugs and Kisses.

The Movie Decides to Make the Depression-Era Gangsters Appear as Their Perfumed Newspaper Personalities. Going from Folk-Heroes to Cold Blooded Killers with the Public Taking the Cue from the Propagandized and Opportunist Newspaper Reports.

This Accounts for the Inaccuracies in the Film because the Newspaper Accounts were Mostly Inaccurate Exploitations Feeding the Public what They Wanted to Read. Here the Mini-Series Makers are Feeding the Public what They Want to See.

Overall, Mostly Above Average with a bit too Much Uninteresting Filler (premonitions and ballet dancing) that Drags this Down from Anything More Aspirational than Fluff.

Note...The (1967) Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway Movie is a very popular and critically acclaimed Flashpoint Film of its Era.

Worth a try

[KarroSen · 7/10 · 4 April 2017]

I hope I have not inserted any spoilers but this movie deserves some love and this is the reason why I decided to make this review, but just to be sure I will mark it as containing spoilers, just for safety.

I ended up watching this as part of a project I had with crime in that period and I have to agree with some reviews that it has its flaws such as: - events that are changed from the historical order they happened or embellished more than it was necessary (read about them to figure it out; I don't want to give spoilers) - the way the actors interact - the aim of the gang (throughout the movie the script offers a false one).

This are the cons but I believe the pros are those that should be taken into consideration: - there is a limited number of movies speaking about Bonnie & Clyde, the last movie being way too back in my opinion (1960s if I am correct and then something in the 1980s) - the costumes and the setting are according to the era and present a useful insight into how that period looked - the events although changed sometimes in the movie time line are historically valid in their entirety - The movie offers a "human side" to the myth - as always, some characters throughout history have been "glorified", and the movie makes them more human - even if it sounds bad, you realize that anybody could become like them in those times. - romance, as in real life existed, and the fact that is kept on a normal level (you would expect lots of romance, which borders with cliché in movies like this, but fortunately you'll see with your own eyes that it isn't so) adds realism to it. - the script is made in such a way that in the end you truly believe that their fate was modeled by their actions

Worth watching, but its glamorized

[speedylara-121-589113 · 7/10 · 1 October 2014]

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.

Spoiler Alert

[jackbadco · 8/10 · 15 December 2013]

I've seen a lot of negative comments about this film, but I really enjoyed it. Maybe because going in I expected a lot of style over substance. Not the case. The filmmakers did a great job getting as much detailed facts in. I thought the casting was very good, especially Holliday Grainger, who did very well, considering, if I'm not mistaken is from the UK. Being a huge fan of Bonnie and Clyde, I enjoyed the loosely based 1967 film very much and have read much of their story. Spoiler Alert! I don't remember so much of the couple's woes being blamed on Bonnie. She is portrayed as a ruthless killer and fame hound. I can't imagine it being so to that extreme. But either way I consider this film to be the most accurate and second only to the 1967 film so far.

Based on a Trues Story is not even close...

[GatormanTN · 4/10 · 10 December 2013]

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.

Liked it

[sgryba-867-609653 · 9/10 · 11 December 2013]

Read as much as I could before the movie and I found the movie to be reflective of the main events that actually happened. The actress actually looked like Bonnie. I liked it better than the Dunaway version, more fact based less Hollywood. The plot doesn't sensationalize the criminals but does show the problems they have and the development of their criminal activity. As well it portrays the sense of power that some people get from guns and the invincibility it creates for power hungry people. I would have liked to see more of the original pictures of the funeral home and maybe a screen scroll of the coroners report of injuries to show the actual devastation.

Good Performances, Lousy Script and Direction

[fburnham · 3/10 · 27 May 2014]

The true story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow is dramatic. 2013's "Bonnie and Clyde" is a miserable mess of dishonest storytelling made almost watchable by the performances of Emile Hirsch, Holliday Grainger and the supporting cast.

In this telling of the outlaws' tale, Bonnie Parker is the prime motivator of their criminal behavior. The consequence of this conceit is to make the role of Clyde Barrow somewhat 'sensitive'. To achieve the Bonnie-is-the-bad-one theme the writers have presented patently false scenes.

## SPOILER COMING ##

The departures from fact in this production are too many to name here, but highlights are: Bonnie Parker did not kill Doyle Johnson on Christmas Day, 1932. But this production has her do it and the thrill-seeking manner in which she commits the murder becomes a central conflict between her and Clyde. Also, Bonnie did not participate in the shooting deaths of highway patrolmen Wheeler and Murphy on Easter Sunday, 1934. The 'eyewitness' to this event was soundly discredited. Even the scene where Bonnie and Clyde first see each other (Bonnie's wedding) is total fabrication, suggesting that the director and writers did not have the confidence to find drama in the true event

## SPOILERS ENDED ##

Director Bruce Beresford and writers Joe Batteer and John Rice have opted to give a rendition of the Bonnie and Clyde story that is a supermarket tabloid version, not anything close to the true story. And frankly, the true story is a whole lot more interesting than the story being told here. Not only is the dishonesty a disservice to the audience, but it also means the actors have to create their characters from scratch, since what is in the script and on the screen does not resemble the true personalities and motivations of Bonnie and Clyde.

Brucie Beresford should look back to his "Breaker Morant" roots to remind himself how a true story should be told.

A definite "pass on it". Aside from just bad storytelling, it is too long and slow. Regrettably I didn't hit the fast-forward button.

Good Updating of the Classic Story

[Michael_Elliott · 14 December 2013]

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.

Bonnie & Clyde - Closer than most of these reviews portray.

[alisshe · 10/10 · 6 March 2020]

Honestly, I do love this miniseries/film. I am a huge history fan of Bonnie & Clyde, & yes, they did fictionalilze a lot of things in this, but they did add a lot of true facts that most films or shows forget.

Yes, Clyde having a "second sight" is kind of silly to add to the story, but there are notes from his sister saying he did for-see things happening to him, like them being ambushed, but nothing like being psychic.

It is still a really good portrayal of them, & I find it quite fun to watch, & as previously mentioned, I am a massive fan of Bonnie & Clyde, I know so much about them as well.

What the?

[randi_middleton · 1/10 · 9 December 2013]

I don't know how this could have been any worse.

First of all, I am a huge Bonnie & Clyde history geek and I know a thing or two about them. That being said, I don't mind some dramatization liberty in the storytelling, but when you just make it up??? Oh come on!!

This was not anywhere close to being accurate in any way shape or form. This is not history. This is a half#$% attempt at story telling all to make a quick buck.

Bonnie & Clyde were white trash thugs and nothing more. They were not attractive at all, even for those times, and Bonnie was very short. But if they want to spiffy them up a bit... fine.. but you don't have to make Clyde a freaking psychic!!!.. You worthless, no talent, monkey writers.

Then, Bonnie being some Hollywood dreamer and breaking into some fake newspaper reporters home boasting about herself... are you kidding me?

And what was with the ballerina Bonnie? So so stupid.

The people who created this should have their careers tank. They deserve it.

In conclusion... This gets the lowest possible rating, and for anyone reading this, and were thinking this was accurate, please don't. Look up the story. You can find addresses of the famous places and some still exist today. Such as the Barrow gas station. You can visit them on google maps.