Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

writetopcat 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.

Frank Burnham 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.

Hel_Bent 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.

iamyuno2 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.