Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

james-wiley The chronological history of this movie is totally wrecked. The absence of two key criminal partners diminished the authenticity and flavor of the real B&C. W.D. Jones who was a paramour for several years and he was replaced with Henry Methvin. The chronological order was totally misplaced. B&C started their infamous joyride with WD Jones a 16 year old who yearned for adventure and of course sex. Frank Hammer, Texas Ranger, did not get involved until after Clyde raided Huntsville Prison in Texas. Get the facts and see the history at http://texashideout.tripod.com/bc.htm.All total, Clyde & Co. murdered 12 police officers and kidnap numerous persons. Clyde was 5 feet, 4 inches tall. He was a runt punk and Bonnie was 4 feet, 9 inches. They had the appearance of children but Oh so deadly.

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.

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.

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.