‘Bonnie & Clyde’ Review: New TV Miniseries Revives Iconic Outlaws

Sun, December 8, 2013 11:00pm EST by 51 Comments
Bonnie & Clyde Review
Courtesy of A&E networks

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment


Posted at 3:19 PM on June 22, 2014  

Did the word memorabilia even exist in 1932 or the term “Bust a Cap’ ?? If this was aimed at a younger audience it was for a lot dumber one also. The acting was great but the film was way to long.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jeanne King

Posted at 3:45 PM on December 12, 2013  

This version was not very well acted. There didn’t seem to be any chemistry between Bonnie and Clyde. I only watched the first part because it didn’t hold my interest.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Pam Willis

Posted at 10:55 PM on December 11, 2013  

There was no chemistry between the actors. This version made it impossible to believe that Bonnie or Clyde would have stood by each other. The story dragged in places and the acting, with the exception of Holly Hunter, was either phoned in or overblown. There were historical inaccuracies everywhere. A general waste of time.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 1:22 PM on December 10, 2013  

…….And most if not all of the critics of this presentation are the same folks who watch reality shows because they think they are actually true life events….and these same critics hail the senseless plethora of comical type sitcoms that saturate prime time as being the greatest.

When I started watching the presentation I thought it wasn’t true to historical fact. However I watched two documentaries about B&C before the Part 2 airing and discovered it was following historical fact albeit loosely due to the artistic license that mostly all movies employ as someone pointed out before me.

I do agree that the movie did not capitalize on how the great depression shaped the lives of B&C, and it could have if the director would have started the movie out with more character development, perhaps by adding additional time overall and expanding it into a three part series.

This new presentation left out a scene that was in the 1967 version of B&C whereby B&C actually meet up with Texas Ranger Hamer and overtake him and then humiliate him by Clyde taking photos of a tied-up Hamer sitting with Bonnie while she maked sexually suggestive moves on Hamer. I am not sure but I think this actually did occurr historically with the real Hamer. In this new movie when Clyde gave a camera as a gift to Bonnie I thought the movie was going to have that scene with Hamer. The movie dialogue kept suggesting that Hamer and B&C had a previous personal run-in because there were three scenes in this new movie where Hamer was asked directly why he hated B&C so much. And Hamer kept avoiding answering those three direct inquiries. It makes me believe that scene was actually done in the movie but didn’t make the final director’s cut. I think that scene was essential to Hamer’s character development and should have survived a possible director’s cut.

In the 1967’s version Faye Dunaway fully captured the character of Bonnie and her love for Clyde and not a heavy love for murdering innocent people, Holliday Grainger did a good job portraying Bonnie’s character as depicted by the writers and director of this TV version. Historically I always believed the real Bonnie had a cavalier Libertad streak in her and treated the world as her personal playground. Grainger did a great job in her thirst quenching development of a cavalier attitude.

All in all, B&C does not deserve the scathing reviews it has been given but I just consider the sources from which those kinds of reviews originate…particularly so when the entire lot of these reviews seems to have been written by the Twitter generation that can’t seem to take the time or initiative to write beyond 140 some characters.

For me to consider a movie to be good it has to grab my attention withinn the first 15 minutes. And that attention can occur any number of way….by good acting…..good storyline…..historically accurate….or just comparing like scences against previously released versions in the movie archives. In this case B&C grabbed my attention through historically accurate, (though that came to me late) and movie archive comparisons.

It grabbed my attention and it did make me want to make sure I didn’t miss Part 2. In short, by certain judgemental merits on my part, it kept my interest and was ENTERTAINING. And isn’t that what movies are supposed to be….just ENTERTAINMENT…….I will give the movie 2.75 to 3 out 5 stars.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 2:37 PM on December 10, 2013  

Self righteous drivel. You find it entertaining but don’t seem to really care that it’s so very heavily fictionalized? And only 3/5 stars after all your droning on about how the critics are full of crap? Personally, I have little use for people with low standards, who value entertainment above facts.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 8:22 PM on December 10, 2013  

Clyde tied up & humiliated Hamer?? Whoever wrote *that* script was smoking something stronger than a cigar! There’s “artistic license” & then there’s “science fiction”!

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 3:38 PM on December 11, 2013  

Don’t care for Bill’s tone. I found this one disappointing and I rarely watch reality TV. When I do I don’t confuse it with reality. I can’t answer the other aspersion because it doesn’t make any sense. We history buffs understand that, after you’ve done the research, you’re going to need to combine things, omit things, change things around either to fit it into the schedule and budget or just to make the medium work. If they weren’t going to do any research, why use historical people? This one had twice as much time as the ’67 version and left out twice as many of B&C’s gang members. I found it not only nonsensical, but bland. The ’67 version had as much fiction as fact but they got a lot more in with half the time to tell the story. And they did that at a time when a lot of the people who ran with Bonnie and Clyde were still living and didn’t want their names used.

Did the writers just not care about this project?

Anyone who ever thought this was true to historical fact, or that the kidnapping scene in Bonnie and Clyde ’67 is anything but Hollywood fiction probably shouldn’t be insulting the rest of the audience.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 5:20 PM on December 11, 2013  

The worst omission in this movie, IMO, was the Joplin hideout: B&C – due to a police ambush – left most of their stuff behind, including guns, license plates, Bonnie’s wacky poems, & the camera – which contained the infamous photos (including Bonnie w/cigar). B&C did NOT send a reporter their 8×10 glossies, as portrayed by this movie. Everything went downhill after Joplin, police began stopping any car with an out-of-state plate & the public could recognize them easily. Thirteen months later, B&C were deader than hammers!

Share this comment at Share with Twitter


Posted at 9:44 AM on December 30, 2013  

After taking that long to tell us the merits of the series I think 2 and 1/2 stars out of 5 kinda’ blows your argument. The ’67 film isn’t completely accurate and takes plenty of artistic license as well (just consider the casting after looking at a picture of the real Bonnie and Clyde), but at least it was artistic going for bigger themes and reveling in the joys of filmmaking.

The new version simply has the pretty faces, but it’s all air after that.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter