ada the leading man is my tpye

GazerRise Fantastic!

Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Michael_Elliott The Other Side of Bonnie and Clyde (1968)*** (out of 4) Interesting documentary that was released a year after the Warren Beatty film became a hit. That film pretty much glamorized the couple but this documentary tries to tell people the real Bonnie and Clyde. That of course is the fact that they were cold-blooded murderers and killed many innocent people for no reason at all. Something the film left out of course.Director Larry Buchanan is best known for some of his horrid horror movies like ZONTAR: THE THING FROM VENUS and CURSE OF THE SWAMP CREATURE but he actually does a decent job with this documentary. On the technical side, there's nothing overly ground-breaking here especially some of the re-enactments, which are a little silly at times. There's certainly nothing here that's going to stand out as great filmmaking but from a historical perspective I think this documentary offers quite a bit.For starters, the documentary has some excellent real footage video and photos from the actual scenes of the crime including the aftermath of the duo's deaths. Another major bonus is that this here is told from the point of view of Frank Hamer, the man who brought the duo down. Not only do we get the information from his point of view but there's an interview with his widow and son. The son has some great moments as he shows us some weapons that were used by the duo and there's a terrific moment where the widow reads a note from a 12-year-old girl who had just seen the movie.THE OTHER SIDE OF BONNIE AND CLYDE is mainly going to appeal to those history buffs who are fascinated by the true story. It's interesting to compare this documentary to the Beatty film simply because this film wants you to know Hollywood changes and glamorizes the truth. It's interesting to think how much that wonderful film did change.

internut02 ... we all know how this story ends. Disappointing delivery but with fascinating seldom-seen photos of the Barrow gang's antics. Some key points glossed over too quickly, such as the Joplin and Platte City incidents, mostly in the narrative by (Burl Ives??). All too choppy editing is distracting to the viewer. Lots of interesting information, interviews with still-living witnesses, and a good interview with Frank Hamilton sitting by a polygraph machine that never gets used. (?) You have to take this one as it is, but in the long run it's worth a watch and shines a different light on the Bonnie and Clyde's dubious legacy. (Don't miss the actual death scene film, shot before all the gun smoke had cleared!)

MartinHafer The only reason I watched this film is that I am a sick person who actually likes to occasionally watch terrible films. It's a weird fascination on my part but I love watching films of the worst directors, such as Ed Wood, Arch Hall, Al Adamson and, of course, Larry Buchanan. Buchanan's films, to put it bluntly, were generally an awful mess and the movies displayed little talent in the directing and acting departments. And the scripts managed, somehow, to be a good bit worse. Some of the classic crap-films of Buchanan would include "Zontar, Thing From Venus" and "Mars Needs Women". I was hoping "The Other Side of Bonnie and Clyde" would be yet another terrible (and therefore amusing) movie. Sadly, I have to report that this film was really not bad....but also not very good.In the film's plus column (at least if you want it to be a good film), the movie is an adequate biography of Bonnie and Clyde and does much to de-glorifying them. That's because the film is told from the perspective of the Texas Ranger credited with their deaths--Frank Hamer. This story is told by using a combination of narration by Burl Ives, old photos and recreations of the actual events. The recreations were generally very poor--with poor acting and reconstructions. However, the rest wasn't bad--though a tad low-key and occasionally dull....but also quite adequate.The film was not great but totally blew it--failing to suck in a manner you'd expect from Larry Buchanan. Fortunately, this turned out to be an aberration and he returned to his suck-tastic ways in subsequent projects!

dbborroughs The film is a documentary in the fashion of Unsolved Mysteries or programs on The History, Discovery, or Learning Channels which mix talking head experts and interviews with recreations. The purpose is to tell the real story of Bonnie and Clyde, and Frank Hamer, the man who hunted them down and killed them. It was made in answer to the Beatty/Dunaway Bonnie and Clyde which twisted the facts and made the outlaw pair out to be more glamorous than they really were.The film is brief 60 minutes, not much longer than the documentaries it resembles and tells its story is a meandering but not uninteresting manner. The film film wanders a bit simply because the film is telling two singular stories, that of the outlaws and that of the law, two tales that don't come together until the final fatal shoot out. The film's very strong anti-criminal pro-law stand point can get to be a bit too much but because of the films brief running time it never overwhelms the narrative.On the plus side is the fact that we get to hear from surviving witnesses to the events and we get to see some of the guns and other items used and places in which the events really took place. This was made at the right time to connect it to the events just thirty years earlier.The film is far from perfect but its enjoyable in the same sort of way that many History Channel documentaries are enjoyable when you happen to come upon them. If you should come upon it you could do worse than watch this for an hour. Certainly it would be an interesting co-bill with the Beatty film.I would also think that its a sterling argument for a big screen version of the life of Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, since in briefly recounting his life one gets the sense of a great story that needs to be told.