Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

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.

Garrett F. I found out about this movie the night before it premiered on a YouTube advertisement. I then watched bits and pieces of the first part on A&E. But I missed the second night, or the second part. I watched the whole miniseries on A&E's website.Here's my thing on it: it was good, but it could've been plenty better. Although many would disagree, I think the acting was excellent. The actors and actresses (most of which I've never heard of before) did very well. I liked Lane (who played Buck) the best, but Emilie (who played Clyde) did an excellent job also.A major con would be that it was inaccurate. I know it was made for our entertainment, but I would have expected Bonnie to be less of the boss and Clyde more of the boss.Here's some pro's and cons I've listed. Pros: -Good acting -Good editing/special effects Cons: -InaccurateAll in all, I think it deserves a 6/10 star. I would have also loved to see some "behind the scenes" footage.

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.