People are voting emotionally.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

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

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.

Whether liberties were taken or not, everyone is basing the history of the Bonnie and Clyde off of hearsay said by other people. This was a story actually focusing on Bonnie and Clyde and not what others had said about them. People claim Ralph Fults has said he never killed anyone. But he was a criminal just like them and oh so many criminals tell the truth. I don't understand people's love for the 1967 movie which was fantasy too saying it was more historically accurate. Um...Why? Were they in the backseat with Bonnie and Clyde during the events? No. They don't know what happened. And we will never know what happened between Bonnie and Clyde. What truly happened. Blanche was a criminal too. Can we really take statements made by criminals known for being dishonest truthfully? Come on, people. Again whether or not this story was more true or not, I don't know but to say that Bonnie wasn't an instigator when we have no evidence to prove that she wasn't. In fact the TV movie even covers that the papers were printing that Clyde was the more ruthless of the two and she was merely along for the ride when we don't know whether or not that was true or not, cause we weren't there. I am more willing to believe she was the instigator. It doesn't make sense for Clyde to be comfortable robbing mom and pop shops and gas stations and then all of the sudden want to do bigger jobs when he was fine with the small ones.

Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker really were two armed robbers in the 1930s. They really did kill a number of people and really did die in an ambush in rural Louisiana in 1934. Over the years some exaggerated stories have popped up here and there, and the writers of this version chose to use some of the exaggerations to make a more interesting story. Be that as it may, and with the disclaimer at the ending credits that many things are fictionalized, taken as a whole it is a very interesting and well-made version of the Bonnie and Clyde story.Emile Hirsch is Clyde Barrow, only about 20 or 21 when this story starts in 1930. It was also the start of the great depression, work was scarce, money was scarce, and petty thief Barrow eventually turned to armed robbery. He was arrested more than once and sent to jail. It is there he had such bad experiences that he became even more hardened and his life of crime was partly to get back at the system. But on more than one occasion he voiced an intention to "pull off one more big one and quit."Very cute young British actress Holliday Grainger is Bonnie Parker, still a teenager when she met Barrow. For whatever reasons they took to each other and soon Bonnie became Clyde's partner in crime. Grainger does a great job with the role, showing a gradual but distinct transformation in attitude as the story progresses.The other key character is William Hurt as Frank Hamer, a semi-retired lawman who was asked specifically to track down and get Bonnie and Clyde. And it is his persistence, with the help of one of Clyde's former associates, that they finally caught up with them in the rural NW Louisiana location. They made no attempt to arrest them, they just shot everything they had to make sure both of them were dead.So, even though much of the story and details surely are fabricated and not intended to be taken as fact, the core of the story over the 4 years from 1930 to 1934 is factual. I saw it as one continuous movie on Netflix streaming movies.