Stephen Mera I hope I have not inserted any spoilers but this movie deserves some love and this is the reason why I decided to make this review, but just to be sure I will mark it as containing spoilers, just for safety.I ended up watching this as part of a project I had with crime in that period and I have to agree with some reviews that it has its flaws such as: - events that are changed from the historical order they happened or embellished more than it was necessary (read about them to figure it out; I don't want to give spoilers) - the way the actors interact - the aim of the gang (throughout the movie the script offers a false one).This are the cons but I believe the pros are those that should be taken into consideration: - there is a limited number of movies speaking about Bonnie & Clyde, the last movie being way too back in my opinion (1960s if I am correct and then something in the 1980s) - the costumes and the setting are according to the era and present a useful insight into how that period looked - the events although changed sometimes in the movie time line are historically valid in their entirety - The movie offers a "human side" to the myth - as always, some characters throughout history have been "glorified", and the movie makes them more human - even if it sounds bad, you realize that anybody could become like them in those times. - romance, as in real life existed, and the fact that is kept on a normal level (you would expect lots of romance, which borders with cliché in movies like this, but fortunately you'll see with your own eyes that it isn't so) adds realism to it. - the script is made in such a way that in the end you truly believe that their fate was modeled by their actions

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.

cwdthaman-409-251017 People complain of its accuracy but I thought it was a great movie and entertaining don't listen to these history morons they are not critics they should have watched a documentary. I get tired of reading post of amateurs criticism that doesn't connect with the general public in any way. Cynical and uninspired come to mind. Why break down the specifics of a part of history made movie that otherwise wouldn't get anyone but these 5 people who hated to watch it due to being to mind draining to watch. Watch the movie with the expectations for entertainment and try to tone down the crazy on your review because you liked the stories in a book of history that could just as inaccurate as the movie.

bob-larrance 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.