just watch it!

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

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.

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.

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.