Sadly Over-hyped

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This was as bad as anything I have ever watched. Forget the terrible acting or the fact that the actress playing Bonnie had an accent that has never been heard at anytime, anywhere in the world. The "historical" events depicted here were pure fiction and ludicrous I am fascinated by the bank robber era of the 1930s, one of the most interesting periods in American history, but geez, who wrote this, a 7th grader? And I am a big fan of Emil Hirsch, a great actor, but he is miscast here and less than convincing as Clyde. I know this was a made for TV production, but that does not excuse it for being so bad.

I have to agree with most of the other reviews here; this version of Bonnie and Clyde strays very far from the true story. I don't know why Hollywood writers feel they need to make up complete fiction; the real history is plenty interesting enough. Still they can make up stories if they want to. But they should stop saying it is based on a true story. Also, what was the deal with the scenes of Bonnie dancing ballet interspersed with scenes of the gang riding down the road? Was this supposed to be Clyde hallucinating? The scene in which Bonnie's leg gets burnt when Clyde flips the car into the ditch happens out of sequence to the real life events. This happened before the gang checked into the Red Crown Tourist Court. In fact it was Clyde buying supplies to treat her leg which attracted attention to them there as law enforcement had alerted people that the outlaws might be buying such supplies. The movie has this accident happening after Red Crown and after the subsequent ambush at the campground. There are plenty of other mistakes made in the film of this sort. This movie also intentionally perpetuates a false rumor of the time, namely that Bonnie shot the officer in the grapevine shooting. That rumor turned out to be false and this was determined very soon afterward. It was Henry Methvin who began shooting the cops and Clyde joined in afterward. In the movie, Methvin is not even with them at the time. This is another intentional fiction. I am not defending Bonnie, only pointing out how the movie mixes fiction in with the real story. This is not the worst TV you can watch; it is entertaining and the acting is better than average. It just isn't true to history. I liked the 1967 version much better.

Since this is aired on the History Channel there is some expectation and some obligation for it to have some good degree of historical accuracy. This mini-series has little to do with historical accuracy except for the names and the year. Even the clothing is not accurate. If you watch this you believe all people in the 30s wore nice suits, clean shaved and had great hair all the time. The writer decided to fabricate Bonnies early life and Clyde's childhood. True that none of it is written down so you can make up whatever you want. But why? Just jump in at age 16 when court records can be used and you are still able to show Clyde's emergence as a criminal. The meeting and courtship of Bonnie and Clyde are completely made-up. The acting is boring. I had to force myself to continue to watch. Basically it is drivel. I expect more from the History Channel.

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